Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — BOARD OF TRADE

Service Managers' Conference (Birmingham)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the President of the Board of Trade why, in view of the contribution of after-sales service to the export drive and to general consumer satisfaction, his Department refused to be represented at the First Annual Conference of Service Managers on 2nd May and 3rd May in Birmingham.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): Attendance at every conference of interest to the Board of Trade would require extra staff. But if there were to be another conference of this kind and we were invited, I should certainly consider whether we could be represented.

Mr. Roberts: Would my right hon. Friend accept that a conference of this type is extremely important, not only in terms of consumer satisfaction, but also because of its particular contribution to the second, if not the third, sale in the export drive? Is she aware that I am glad that she is to reconsider this matter, and that I hope that for the second conference the Department will be represented?

Mrs. Dunwoody: We would all agree that it is essential to have an adequate after-sales service, and anything which contributes to a greater knowledge of the necessity for consumer protection is to be welcomed.

Industrial Development Certificates (West Midlands)

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many industrial development certificates have been granted since 1st January 1965 to companies already operating in the West Midlands: and how many applications have been refused.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: A total of 1,887 industrial development certificates for a total of 32·8 million square feet have been issued to existing firms in the West Midlands since 1st January 1965. In the same period 185 such applications for 5·5 million square feet have been refused.

Mr. Smith: Is the hon. Lady aware that many West Midlands firms are under the impression that if they apply for an i.d.c. they are likely to be refused? As many of them are long-established in the area, what would she suggest to encourage them to apply for a certificate?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that people sometimes use subjective rather than objective judgments. My Department is anxious that all modernisation schemes should go ahead, and the only way to find out whether an i.d.c. will be granted is, obviously, to ask for one.

Mr. William Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members in the West Midlands are always complaining about the so-called ban on i.d.c.s? Is this not rather odd since more development has taken place in the last two years than took place in 1963–64? Does it not show that we cannot believe a word that they say?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am well aware that, for various reasons, there is in the West Midlands a constant campaign to try to misrepresent the i.d.c. policy of the Board of Trade. We are not in any way restricting growth that is adequate or necessary for the region. What we are trying to do is to alter the situation in which in the hon. Gentleman's constituency there is a 1·4 per cent. unemployment rate, while in Great Britain, on average, it is 2·3 per cent., and higher in the development areas.

Selective Employment Tax (Tourist Industry)

Mr. Crouch: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will set up an independent inquiry into the effects of the selective employment tax on the tourist industry with instructions to report in advance of Professor Reddaway.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Anthony Crosland): No, Sir. Professor Reddaway's inquiry will cover the hotel and catering industries which are liable to S.E.T., and he has already started work on this part of the inquiry.

Mr. Crouch: Does the President of the Board of Trade not think that this industry, which is a growth industry earning this country nearly £400 million a year from overseas tourists, is worthy of more speedy investigation as to the burden of S.E.T.? Is he aware that the Budget proposals will mean that £35 million will be recovered from it in one year? Will he give further thought to a more speedy investigation?

Mr. Crosland: There has been a great deal of discussion on this matter in the Committee stage of the Tourism Bill and no doubt there will be more when the Bill comes to Report and Third Reading in the House. I must point out two things. First, not all of the tourism industry by any means is subject to S.E.T. For example, the transport part of the industry is not. Second, whatever the alleged burdens of S.E.T. on the industry, our earnings from tourism continue to rise in the most encouraging way.

Investment

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give his latest estimate of the level of fixed investment in 1969, expressed as a percentage increase or decrease on the 1968 figure.

Mr. Sheldon: asked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has now made of the level of investment in 1969.

Mr. Crosland: An official estimate of total fixed investment in 1969 was published in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1969–70 on 15th April.

Results of the May, 1969, Investment Intentions Inquiry were published on Monday, 16th June.

Mr. Jenkin: Since the results of that inquiry showed that there is already a marked reduction in industry's expectations of investment, and since on the very day it was published the Chief Secretary to the Treasury told the Finance Bill Committee that on the latest information investment intentions were high, and satisfactory and that there was no reason to change the view on that, was not the Chief Secretary talking out of the back of his head?

Mr. Crosland: My right hon. Friend is notable for talking out of the front of his head and notable for his judgment and ripe experience. We must keep this matter in perspective. The investment inquiry to which the hon. Gentleman referred, while it showed that expectations in manufacturing industry were marginally down, also showed that expectations of investment in services and distribution were not down at all, and that expectations of investment in shipping were markedly up.

Mr. Sheldon: Since the most important aspect of investment concerns manufacturing investment, and this is what is causing great concern among many hon. Members, will my right hon. Friend see what can be done to stimulate this kind of investment, bearing in mind also the very serious concern expressed by the Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin?

Mr. Crosland: Investment in any of these sectors contributes to the growth and productivity of the British economy. I agree with my hon. Friend that manufacturing investment is crucially important, but I must point out that there is a limit to the extent of the investment boom that we can have in any year when we are trying for a rapid increase in exports, because exports and capital investments, to a very considerable extent, fall on the same sectors of industry—namely, the engineering sectors.

Mr. Hall-Davis: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the categoric answer he gave me on 30th April, that there was no evidence of any turn-down in manufacturing industry investments? Would it perhaps not increase confidence in the Board of Trade's sensitivity to changes


in trade if he was a little less categorical in future, when he has been overtaken by events so rapidly?

Mr. Crosland: I find it incredible that I was as categorical as the hon. Gentleman says. If he says that I was, then obviously I would admit it. I should like to make the general point because the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) mentioned this some weeks ago, that looking back over the history of the Board of Trade investment inquiries, they have tended to be more often on the pessimistic side than on the optimistic side.

Mr. Barnett: Is not the present shortage of capacity a lesson to us all of what past deflationary squeezes have done to the economy and to investment in particular? Will my right hon. Friend have words with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor with a view to mitigating the worst effects of the present squeeze on this vital aspect of the economy—manufacturing investment?

Mr. Crosland: The effect of the squeeze is something that my right hon. Friend and I and other Ministers keep constantly under review. I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question, that this crucial problem of a shortage of capacity has been due to a consistent failure on the part of this country over 20 years to invest a high enough proportion of its national income.

Mr. Higgins: Is it not quite ludicrous that we should have two headlines on the front page of the Financial Times, one reporting the right hon. Gentleman, the other reporting the Chief Secretary, both saying two totally different things? Would he co-ordinate his efforts with the Chief Secretary?

Mr. Crosland: I find it impossible to believe that my right hon. Friend and I could be at odds in any way. I will certainly look into the right hon. Gentleman's point and discuss it with my right hon. Friend.

Investment Grants

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will pay investment grants to firms in the textile waste processing industry.

Mr. Tom Boardman: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now seek to extend investment grants to machinery used for processing rubber waste and textile wastes.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edmund Dell): Those firms in the textile and rubber reclamation industries which carry out manufacturing processes resulting in an end product significantly different from the original waste materials can qualify for investment grants on their new machinery or plant. Firms carrying out less substantial processes, such as sorting rubber or textile waste, do not qualify.

Mr. Jenkin: Since both investment grants and S.E.T. are governed by much the same principles, will the hon. Gentleman accept that the industry does not agree with his assertion that large parts of the textile waste reclamation industry do not produce goods to a specification for the purposes of their customers and that the grounds on which he is refusing such firms investment grants and advising that they are not entitled to refunds of S.E.T. are bogus?

Mr. Dell: There are several questions, such as whether there is a manufacturing process, whether there is a substantial change and whether goods are produced to a specification. We attempt to maintain a clear line between those processes which benefit from grants and those which do not. I think that we are maintaining a clear line here.

Mr. Boardman: Is it not relevant that the reclaimed products are the result of a manufacturing process? Should not they, therefore, qualify for investment grant? In view of the enormous import saving produced, will not the hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision?

Mr. Dell: I have said that where there is a manufacturing process resulting in end products significantly different from the original waste materials, we make an investment grant. Where it is merely a matter of sorting, we do not.

Mr. Blackburn: Since this is an import saving industry, does not my hon. Friend think that such firms are treated unfairly as regards both investment grants and S.E.T. in comparison with the scrap metal and waste paper industries?

Mr. Dell: The principles involved are similar to those which operate in waste paper and scrap metal. We have never been able to take account of whether a process is import saving. However, one of the beneficial characteristics of the investment grant scheme is that it concentrates on manufacturing industry which produces a large proportion of our visible exports.

Mr. Ginsburg: Is my hon. Friend aware that the woollen rag trade is centred in my constituency? I am sure that he will have read the report of the Wool Textile Working Party, which was commissioned by Sir Stafford Cripps, and which reported to the present Prime Minister when he was at the Board of Trade. Is my hon. Friend aware that in that report the woollen rag trade was treated as an integral part of the wool textile industry? That being the case, why is not the woollen rag trade on the same basis as the wool textile industry for the purpose of investment grants?

Mr. Dell: My hon. Friend is requiring me to have a long memory in several respects. I will look at that report. Nevertheless, in respect of investment grants, the division of principle was clearly laid down in the Act. Where there is a manufacturing process, there is grant; where there is merely sorting, there is not. We have to stick to that distinction.

Trade Descriptions Act (Prosecutions)

Mr. Gardner: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many prosecutions have been initiated since the Trade Descriptions Act came into force.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: By the end of last week local weights and measures authorities had notified us of 435 cases in which it was intended to prosecute.

Mr. Gardner: Has my hon. Friend noticed an improvement in the selling practices of retailers, and is she satisfied that weights and measures departments have sufficient staff to deal with complaints which come in from the public?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I do not think that we can be satisfied that the weights and measures departments are fully staffed. There is a shortage of qualified people and one would like to see the departments

with more staff. The number of prosecutions which have been set on foot shows that this sort of legislation was needed.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Is the discrepancy between the activities of various local authorities being ironed out now that they have a duty laid upon them to enforce this Act?

Mrs. Dunwoody: It would be foolish to pretend that some are not more active than others. We are trying to deal with this by encouragement from the Department.

Visible Trade Balance

Mr. Hall-Davis: asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the three-monthly average of the visible trade balance for the three-monthly periods ending with each of the months from January to May, 1969.

Mr. Crosland: The figures were released in a Press notice issued last Thursday, and they are also published in today's Board of Trade Journal.

Mr. Hall-Davis: What is the right hon. Gentleman's assessment of the contribution made by the import deposits scheme to the containment of the level of imports during this period?

Mr. Crosland: The contribution has been a useful one, although it is not possible at the moment to quantify it.

Mr. Barnett: Would it not be better to admit that there are grave dangers, because of the United States monetary squeeze and the West German policy, of a serious effect on world trade and on our own trade figures this year, especially towards the end of the year and the beginning of next year? Is there not some urgency about having a meeting with both countries and, indeed, an international meeting, to consider the possible effects on our trade figures and on world trade generally?

Mr. Crosland: I take note of the suggestion in the latter part of my hon. Friend's question. On the prospects of world trade for the rest of this year, all our evidence is that while it will not expand at the dramatic rate at which it did last year, we should still have a reasonably healthy growth of world trade in 1969.

Sir K. Joseph: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider altering the presentation of the monthly trade figures so as to make the central figure in the eyes of the public and the Press the net outcome of current trading, visible and invisible, and using the invisible figure gross before the deduction of Government overseas expenditure because by that criterion, we were, last quarter, due to invisibles, in current trading surplus?

Mr. Crosland: There are two aspects to this. One is the separation of private invisibles from Government invisibles, and that is a point made to us by the Committee on Invisible Exports which the Government are still considering. The second aspect is whether we could publish every month a joint figure of visibles and invisibles. The difficulty is that, whereas we get the visible figures monthly, we get the invisibles for each quarter some time after the event.

Debt Recovery (Trade Protection Associations)

Mr. Brooks: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will set up an inquiry into the activities of trade protection associations and the methods they employ to seek recovery of alleged debts.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: It would be premature to set up such an inquiry until the Government have decided what action to take on the recommendation of the Committee on the Enforcement of Judgment Debts that unreasonable harassment of debtors should be made a criminal offence.

Mr. Brooks: In view of the fact that the committee confirmed the existence of some highly disreputable tactics involving intimidation and blackmail, has not the matter to be dealt with urgently? Speaking as one who has had a little personal experience of the arm-twisting methods employed, may I urge my hon. Friend that this part of the Committee's recommendations be acted upon forthwith?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am sure that the whole House will deplore some of the disreputable methods used to harass debtors. But we must make up our minds on this before deciding which action to take.

Mr. Evelyn King: Is the hon. Lady aware that, following recent legislation, there is a small but growing number of layabouts who contrive to live in London all but rent-free except for occasional down-payments and on debts that they never intend to pay?

Mrs. Dunwoody: One can deal easily with people who are layabouts without making it difficult for people who are genuine debtors and are being harassed unnecessarily.

Investment Grants (Expenditure)

Mr. Biffen: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the expected total expenditure on investment grants during the current year; and what plans he has to vary the rates of investment grant.

Mr. Ridley: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the estimated cost, in the current year, of investment grants.

Mr. Dell: The estimated cost is £460 million as shown in the Civil Estimates for 1969–70 presented to the House on 19th February, 1969.
The answer to the second part of the question is "None, Sir".

Mr. Biffen: Is it not clear that the International Monetary Fund's indicated policies require the Government to pursue monetary and money supply policies which themselves are having an effect upon manufacturing investment? If, in those circumstances, the Government are not prepared to use the investment grants as a contracyclical device, would it not be better to scrap them altogether?

Mr. Dell: Investment grants give assistance to manufacturing industry in their investment programmes. In 1967 and 1968, we supplemented the standard rate of investment grant by 5 per cent., and, as the hon. Gentleman will no doubt have noticed, this had a beneficial effect on the level of investments in 1968, especially during the last quarter.

Exports (Greece)

Mr. Biffen: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the value of United Kingdom exports to Greece for


the current year to date; what percentage change this represents over the corresponding figure for 1968; and if he will make a statement on the prospect for British exporters during the coming 12 months.

Mr. Crosland: The provisional figure to the end of May is £22·5 million, which is an increase of 43 per cent. over the corresponding period of 1968. On prospects for British exports generally this year, I would refer the hon. Member to my speech in the Budget debate.

Mr. Biffen: Would it not be regrettable if this valuable market were imperilled by those ideological zealots who constantly criticise the domestic policies of the Greek Government? Furthermore, would the right hon. Gentleman take this occasion to indicate what are the prospects now of the deal involving the nuclear power station, which has been the subject of a great deal of Press comment?

Mr. Crosland: There are many developments in Greece which I am sure hon. Members on all sides find regrettable. As to the trade aspect. I am constantly asked to limit trade with different countries because of the views taken in this House on the régimes of those countries. I always reply that if I were to encourage trade with only countries of whose régimes we approve, we should trade with very few countries. That, in my view, has nothing to do with the political aspects of what view might be taken by reasonable people of a régime or its behaviour.
As to the atomic energy deal, there have been difficulties about this on the tobacco side of it, but I hope that tobacco manufacturers will be willing to participate in a study with the Greek producers with a view to helping them produce a type of tobacco to suit the requirements of the British market.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is the agreement to sell the atomic reactor inevitably linked with the purchase of Greek tobacco, or is there some other way of clinching the deal?

Mr. Crosland: I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would put down a Question on that. I am not certain about the word "inevitably". Obviously, there

has been a link but, off the cuff, I would not like to say whether it is an inevitable link or whether the atomic energy deal can be concluded without the settlement of the tobacco point.

Home and Export Sales (Relative Profitability)

Mr. Silvester: asked the President of the Board of Trade what studies he has made or has in progress of the relative profitability of home and export sales; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Dell: Sample inquiries carried out in 1967 and 1968 indicated a wide range of experience of relative profitability, and I hope it will be possible to publish the results soon. For the samples, average levels of export profit rates were lower than for home sales before devaluation, but the gap was narrowed in 1968.

Mr. Silvester: Would not the Minister agree that there is something in the argument of Mr. Tessler of The Times that some firms which regard exports as unprofitable are not making a proper analysis of the relevant costs as between home and export sales? Will the report, when published, cover this point?

Mr. Dell: Mr. Tessler's views may be correct concerning a number of firms. I cannot say whether the report, when published, will cover this point, but it is very important that in costing the profitability of exports firms should do the job properly.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Would the Minister say why those studies do not include the very promising opportunities between North-East Scotland and Scandinavia? Will he take those into account at an early date?

Mr. Dell: I think that those opportunities are well known, but the report will cover the relative profitability of home and export sales.

Mr. Higgins: Does the hon. Gentleman deny that the Government's own actions since devaluation have virtually eroded any increased profitability which might have arisen from it? If he does, will he publish the Government's estimates of how much their various measures have produced profitability on export sales?

Mr. Dell: I do deny it. My right hon. Friend only recently stated in the House his current estimate of the continuing advantage of devaluation price-wise.

Radishes

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that growers of radishes in the Vale of Evesham and elsewhere have been prevented from marketing their early spring crops grown under glass by market flooding by Californian radishes; what regulations regarding radish imports are in force to provide protection of home crops; and, in view of the cost to the balance of payments of importing food from abroad, if he will impose fresh import quotas for radishes and similar crops.

Mr. Dell: I have no evidence that the market for home grown radishes has been depressed by imports. Radishes from the Commonwealth Preference area enter duty-free. Other imports pay a 10 per cent. duty. There are no quota restrictions on imports of radishes, except for the Sino-Soviet bloc, and I do not propose to introduce any.

Sir G. Nabarro: Would the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must bear the truth about radishes.

Sir G. Nabarro: Would the hon. Gentleman pay a visit to the Vale of Evesham and ascertain for himself why it was necessary to bring Californian radishes into this country in vast quantities in the spring of this year, at the peak of the English market season, thereby destroying all prospects for the English growers to sell their produce at reasonable prices?

Mr. Dell: What the hon. Gentleman should be worried about is the price which radishes, grown in the Vale of Evesham or elsewhere, are bringing in the market. I have no evidence that, generally speaking, the prices currently being obtained for radishes, particularly in late April and May, are lower this year than they were in 1967 and 1968. In fact, I understand that they are higher. Nevertheless, if people in the industry think that there is a substantial case for an increase in duty, they should present it to the Board of Trade.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Would my hon. Friend agree that this was an appropriate subject for the Leader of the Opposition to discuss when he was at the White House?

Sir G. Nabarro: Fatuous.

Imports (Fruit and Vegetables)

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the President of the Board of Trade, having regard to the trade deficit in 1969 to date, if he will revise the regulation of imports of foreign fruit and vegetables and all horticultural products in order to enhance prospects for home producers.

Mr. Body: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will seek to amend the existing controls over the import of foreign fruit and vegetables in order to enable United Kingdom growers to increase production and thereby reduce imports.

Mr. Dell: As my right hon. Friend told the hon. Member on 14th May, our agricultural programme provides for the expansion of home production. Horticultural growers receive financial and other help to enable them to compete more effectively with imports, and the Government see no need to alter the present arrangements concerning fruit and vegetable imports.—[Vol. 783, c. 1377–8.]

Sir G. Nabarro: Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the cumulative figure of horticultural grants is now approaching £30 million and that unless there is intelligent co-operation between his Department and the Ministry of Agriculture in regulating imports of foreign horticultural products to keep them off our market during the peak season for English growers, much of that heavy investment will be wasted?

Mr. Dell: I believe that there is intelligent co-operation between my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and the Board of Trade. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the main horticultural crops from most-favoured-nation sources are subject to various specific tariffs during the main United Kingdom marketing season. Imports from the Commonwealth Preference area enter duty free.

Mr. Body: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that import duties have remained


the same for 16 years and that, therefore, as each year goes by there is less protection and security for our growers?

Mr. Dell: I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro): if there is a substantial case for changing the duties in this area, that case can be made to the Board of Trade. We should have to consider the effect on consumers and on our international obligations.

Mr. Dickens: Apart from the effect on consumers, is not my hon. Friend concerned about the high and rising cost of luxury imports? Is not this not only a most serious matter but one to which his Department must give increasing attention?

Mr. Dell: The Question is about horticultural products. I do not think my hon. Friend's supplementary question arises in this context.

Davies Investments Limited (Liquidation)

Sir A. V. Harvey: asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress is being made in the liquidation of Davies Investments Limited; and whether another creditors' meeting will be arranged.

Mr. Dell: The liquidator appointed by the court has made satisfactory progress with the realisation of the assets and hopes to make an interim distribution to the creditors in July. Further realisations and distributions are likely to be spread over a period of years. The liquidator, to save expense, does not propose to call a further meeting of creditors but will send the creditors a report with the interim distribution.

Sir A. V. Harvey: I recognise the difficulties in bringing about this liquidation. How much will the interim dividend be? How much will these unfortunate investors, many of whom ill-advisedly put their life savings into this company, eventually get to the pound?

Mr. Dell: I understand that the interim distribution will certainly not be more than 5s. in the pound. The payment of any further dividend must depend on what the liquidator is able to realise, and it is obviously likely to take some time if he is to get the best figures of realisation.

So I cannot answer the second question.

Mr. Barnett: Is the new legislation in the Companies Act now working in such a way as to prevent this sort of thing from happening again?

Mr. Dell: The legislation in the Companies Act would not help particularly in this case. This is a matter concerned with the Protection of Depositors Act. But if hon. Members have any proposals to make which would help to prevent such an event as this, we should be glad to hear them.

Foreign Exchange Earnings

Mr. Blaker: asked the President of the Board of Trade what were the net foreign exchange earnings of the consulting engineering industry in 1968.

Mr. Dell: Information on these earnings is not available, but discussions are proceeding with the profession with a view to obtaining it.

Mr. Blaker: Will the Minister press ahead with these discussions in view of the recommendation of the Bland Committee in 1967 that the statistics for invisible earnings should be improved? Will he also investigate the import content of the earnings of this industry?

Mr. Dell: I will certainly press ahead. I note the hon. Gentleman's second point, and will see what information we can obtain.

Mr. Blaker: asked the President of the Board of Trade what were the net foreign exchange earnings of the insurance industry in 1968.

Mr. Crosland: The 1968 figures are not yet complete, but I expect the net earnings (including portfolio income) to exceed the £135 million recorded for 1967.

Mr. Blaker: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in 1967 the Bland Committee recommended that the Government should find ways of mitigating the impact of S.E.T. on service industries which made overseas earnings? Is not this a good case in point?

Mr. Crosland: I understand that this very matter has recently been discussed at length in Committee on the Finance Bill.

Liquidations (Workers' Wages)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation to ensure the rights of a workman as a preferential creditor for wages owing him, even if the assets of the firm for which he was working are seized on liquidation by local authorities employing such a firm when it fails to complete its contract.

Mr. Dell: I doubt whether this would be desirable but will consider the suggestion again in preparing any further companies legislation.

Mr. Allaun: Is not this in conflict with the accepted principle that unpaid wages are a priority claim? In the case of the Salford workers which I raised with the Minister, did not several local authorities seize valuable plant belonging to the building company?

Mr. Dell: As I indicated, my mind is certainly not closed to this idea. In the case mentioned, most of the equipment which was on hire or hire purchase was repossessed by the owners before the winding up. The problem is to balance the interests of the individual, who has certain preferential claims, and the interests of the community, which, through the local authority, wishes to enter into advantageous contracts. Nevertheless, I will certainly consider the matter.

Petro-Chemical Plant (Scottish Highlands)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet received any request for Board of Trade assistance towards the establishment of a petro-chemical plant in the Highlands of Scotland.

Mr. Dell: As the hon. Member has already been advised, it is not our practice to reveal details of individual applications to, or inquiries from, the Board of Trade.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: As in this instance a taxpayers' subsidy of £72,000 to an American company for every job created is involved, and in view of the recent advice from several independent authorities that the Government are giving excessive encouragement to the development of capital-intensive, as opposed

to labour-intensive, industries in development areas, is it not essential that the House should be informed of and have an opportunity to discuss any such grants or loans before they are made?

Mr. Dell: The hon. Gentleman is now talking about £72,000 a job whereas last time he referred to £176,000 a job, so any rate the figure is coming down. The sort of investment incentives given by Governments over a period have been capital-intensive in the way the hon. Gentleman says. I am not myself persuaded that that is a bad thing. At any rate, it is possible that the present system of incentives which we operate is less capital-intensive than that operated by right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are powerful vested interests in the Highlands which do not want any industry there? Will he give an assurance that if the Department is satisfied that this is an economically feasible project, the Board of Trade will give all the assistance it possibly can?

Mr. Dell: We will consider this project in exactly the same way as any other project. I am glad to note my hon. Friend's welcome for what the Board of Trade is doing to assist employment in the Highlands.

Imported Boned Beef

Mr. Gardner: asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the recommendations of the Northumberland Committee on the importation of carcase meat from countries where foot-and-mouth disease is endemic, he will so reduce the 20 per cent. duty on imported boned meat as to ensure that the present levels of beef prices are not increased.

Mr. Willey: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a further statement on the proposed reduction of import duty on boneless meat.

Mr. Dell: It is the Government's intention that the duty should be reduced so that a reasonable amount of trade may flow. Before recommending the new rate, I shall take account of all relevant factors, including the probable effect on prices. Discussions with the interests concerned are continuing, and a statement will be made as soon as possible.

Mr. Gardner: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that his Department is responsible for consumer protection, and will he assure us that the duty will be reduced to an extent that will maintain beef prices? Will he resist pressure from sections of the agricultural industry which appear to want meat imports to be stopped altogether?

Mr. Dell: I note what my hon. Friend says. I hope that we shall be able to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion which will have a minimal effect on prices.

Mr. Jopling: Is the Minister aware that many South American countries which supply us with this meat run appalling trade deficits with us? Will he try to reduce this drain on our currency, in particular by encouraging home meat production instead of buying from overseas?

Mr. Dell: We are encouraging home meat production. What we are here considering is the duty on boneless beef.

Exports (Rhodesia)

Mr. Booth: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many licences have been granted for exports to Southern Rhodesia since the commencement of sanctions.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The information is not readily available and its value would not justify the amount of work which its extraction would entail. Licences have been, and are being, issued for supplies for medical and educational purposes for books and news material and for the essential needs of those Central African common services which are vital to the economic well-being of Zambia.

Mr. Booth: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have evidence which I have sent to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that trade in engineering goods is taking place? To exert the maximum economic pressure on the régime, will my hon. Friend give an undertaking that there will be no further exports to Rhodesia by licence granted by the Board of Trade, and will she deal with the problems arising from this for other countries by direct means?

Mrs. Dunwoody: We will certainly look at any evidence which the hon. Gentleman has. As he realises, export

licences have to be granted, and normally these are a very efficient check. However, we will look at the matter again.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Will the hon. Lady be very careful in taking such action so that it does not lead to hardship to Africans in Rhodesia and Zambia?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that I am a very prudent lady and I shall do nothing to contravene the United Nations resolution.

Registration of Hotels

Mr. Milne: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now announce the date on which he will introduce the registration of hotels in Great Britain; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. William Rodgers): The Development of Tourism Bill now before the House contains enabling powers for the registration of tourist accommodation, and the tourist boards for which it also provides will no doubt consider the question in due course and make recommendations.

Mr. Milne: Will my hon. Friend take steps to put this legislation into operation as early as possible, in view of the emphasis laid by his right hon. Friend on the importance of tourism?

Mr. Rodgers: I hope that the further stages of this important Bill will be completed quickly. We shall then set up the boards, but we must allow them an opportunity to consider these proposals and suggest to us what they would like to see done.

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development

Mr. Judd: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement on the latest developments within the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.

Mr. Crosland: Over the past several months the Trade and Development Board and all its main committees have met to follow up the results of the Second United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. In addition, the Board has considered, and will continue to consider at its next meeting in the autumn, the proper contribution of U.N.C.T.A.D.


to the preparatory work of the Second United Nations Development Decade.

Mr. Judd: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, but does not he agree that if our aid and development programme is to have any meaning, progress must be made on this front? What steps does he propose to take in terms of initiative by the Government?

Mr. Crosland: Aid questions are obviously a matter for my right hon. Friend. On trade, by far the most important thing is to follow up the initiative taken at New Delhi on generalised preference. Since New Delhi, the Government have consistently taken the lead on this. We are waiting particularly for one other major Government to table their proposals.

Balance of Payments (United Kingdom and Canada)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he has taken to correct the balance of payments between the United Kingdom and Canada.

Mr. Crosland: Although we do not aim at an exact balance of trade with individual countries, it is our continuing object, through the Government export services and in conjunction with B.N.E.C., to give all possible assistance to British exporters to exploit the opportunities of this important and expanding market.

Mr. Shinwell: Does not my right hon. Friend find it extraordinary that the Commonwealth country of Canada is making large purchases from the United States and elsewhere? Cannot Canada make more purchases from this country to help our balance of payments, otherwise what is the point of Canada remaining in the Commonwealth?

Mr. Crosland: The last part of my right hon. Friend's supplementary question raises rather wider issues. Of course we are extremely anxious to increase our exports to Canada, but I must insist that it would make no sense for this country to aim at an exact balance of trade with every country. Our imports from Canada are mostly of wheat and essential raw materials, and there is no reason why we should have an exact balance of trade with Canada or any other country.

Minister's Visit to Moscow

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement on his official visit to Moscow and on the future of Anglo-Soviet trade.

Mr. Crosland: I visited the Soviet Union at the beginning of this month to discuss with the Soviet Minister of Foreign Trade the development of trade between our two countries, and to sign a new trade agreement for the period from 1st July 1969 to 31st December 1975. The text of the agreement will be laid before Parliament as a White Paper later this month. I expect Anglo-Soviet trade, which doubled in value between 1964 and 1968, to continue to grow; and I hope it will become more diversified.
I also took the opportunity of being in Moscow to meet the Soviet Minister of Civil Aviation to express my interest in negotiations being opened for an air route across Siberia to the Far East.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: While I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman, unlike the Minister of Technology, took the opportunity to raise the case of Mr. Gerald Brooke, may I ask him whether there was full discussion of the persistently adverse balance of trade with the Soviet Union, and what will be done to redress it?

Mr. Crosland: Yes, there was, of course, discussion on the adverse balance of trade, and the Minister of Foreign Trade assured me that he wished to see an increase in British exports to the Soviet Union. I must point out that this adverse balance has diminished considerably in the last two or three years, and that a considerable part of it is due to our imports of diamonds which we then re-export to other countries.

Retail Distribution (Money Offers)

Mr. Milne: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will institute a study into the cost effect of money offers in the various fields of retail distribution.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: How far the benefit of increased sales will outweigh the cost of redeeming coupons is


a matter for the individual retailer's judgment.

Mr. Milne: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is a matter of consumer protection and that an examination of this method of selling and of methods of fixing prices is urgently required?

Mrs. Dunwoody: We should welcome any possibility of examining whether such a cessation of trading practice would really mean a drop in prices, but I am afraid that the form of publicity used by commercial firms does not equal in amounts of money a considerable price reduction.

Hoverports

Mr. Woodnutt: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now introduce an Order under the Hovercraft Act 1968 giving local authorities control over the siting of hoverports as defined in Section 4(1) of the Act where a material change of use of land is not involved and building or engineering operations are not involved.

Mr. William Rodgers: No, Sir. The need for this has not been established.

Mr. Woodnutt: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that he and his right hon. Friend have misunderstood every letter I have written to them? Most of these hoverports are being established where there is no material change of user and local authorities have no control whatever. If we are to avoid chaos in the Solent, the Government must introduce an Order in Council under the Hovercraft Act to give local authorities power and control.

Mr. Rodgers: I am sorry that we have not been as helpful to the hon. Member as I had hoped. I realise that he has a difficult local problem. There are some strong feelings involved. The fact remains that the need has not yet been established for the sort of legislation the hon. Member has in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION

Third London Airport (VTO Aircraft)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he

will submit to the Roskill Commission on the location of a Third London Airport Departmental evidence on the development of vertical take-off airliners, in view of its relevance to the siting of airports.

Mr. William Rodgers: The Commission on the Third London Airport has already received evidence from the Government on this.

Mr. Roberts: Would my hon. Friend not agree that there is a great need to stress this matter since it is quite useless to have the present long and complicated inquiry involving time, labour and resources if by the '80s and '90s, when such an airport comes into operation, people can fly direct from the centre of London to the centre of New York?

Mr. Rodgers: I do not think that my hon. Friend's conclusions follow. I entirely agree with him that the prospects for short take-off and vertical take-off airliners are very interesting. That is why so much work is being done on this, particularly by my right hon. Friend's Department.

Municipal Airports (Consultative Committees)

Mr. Speed: asked the President of the Board of Trade what assistance his Department is giving to municipal airports setting up consultative committees under Section 8(2) of the Civil Aviation Act 1968; and if he will list the authorities that are setting up such committees.

Mr. William Rodgers: Discussions have been held with the bodies representing most aerodrome owners, and advice will continue to be available to individual aerodrome owners about the provision of facilities for consultation. In the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston) on 23rd May 1969, I listed the 13 aerodromes which have been designated so far. In practice, nearly all their owners have, or intend to, set up consultative committees.—[Vol. 784, c. 171.]

Mr. Speed: Will the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is essential that these committees should be working as soon as possible? Can he give an assurance that the Maud proposals will not be used


as an excuse to delay setting up these committees?

Mr. Rodgers: We favour widespread consultation with the interests concerned, where aerodromes are sited. We are certainly playing our full part.

Mr. Onslow: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many other inquiries he has had recommending the establishment of such committees on which he has not yet given a decision, and what are the criteria which lead him to a decision?

Mr. Rodgers: We have so far designated aerodromes where there is most public concern. In general, we attempt to respond to local opinion, bearing in mind that a single criticism would not be sufficient to make us feel it necessary to invoke the provisions of the Act.

Roskill Commission's Report

Mr. Onslow: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to receive the complete report of the Roskill Commission.

Mr. Crosland: During the course of next year.

Mr. Onslow: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how soon thereafter he will be willing to publish the report and when he would expect the House to have an opportunity to debate it? Assuming that the recommendations are acceptable to Parliament, how soon would he expect construction to start?

Mr. Crosland: The answer to all three parts of the supplementary question is "as soon as reasonably possible".

British European Airways (Aircraft Requirements)

Mr. Onslow: asked the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he has had with the Chairman of British European Airways concerning the corporation's future aircraft requirements; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. William Rodgers: We are in close touch with B.E.A. but it has not yet made any proposals to us.

Mr. Onslow: Although I understand that it is very difficult to get firm dates out of the Board of Trade, can the Minister say what target dates he sees

as being necessary for a firm decision on the BAC311?

Mr. Rodgers: It is now for B.E.A. to come back to us with firm proposals. The consequences of these for the BAC311 or any other aircraft are a matter which we would have to consider with B.E.A. and with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology.

Edwards Committee (White Paper)

Mr. Fortescue: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he now expects to publish the White Paper on the proposals of the Edwards Committee.

Mr. Crosland: I am proceeding with the consultations to which I referred in my answer of 30th April. I aim to publish a White Paper as soon as possible but I now think it unlikely that this will be before the summer recess.

Mr. Fortescue: Can the President of the Board of Trade confirm or deny that the delay in discussing the future of the multi-million pound aircraft industry is due to the fact that 170 warehousemen have been on strike and, therefore, 10,000 copies of the Edwards Report have been locked in a warehouse for many weeks? If this is the chief reason for delay, would it not have been better to print a few more copies?

Mr. Crosland: This is not the chief reason for the delay. We have ensured that, despite the strike, which created difficulties, copies of the report have gone to all persons and organisations closely affected. The main point is that the Edwards Report, as hon. Members who have read it will know, is a very complex and very controversial document. There are passionate feelings about it in different sections of the aviation industry. I wish to be absolutely certain that every section of the industry has the fullest opportunity to make its views known before the Government take action.

Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all that he has just said is completely true?

Mr. Corfield: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that a decision on many recommendations in the Edwards Report is very urgent. Will he consider making his decisions known, if necessarily, piecemeal when they are


important, rather than wait until he is in a position to take a decision on all the recommendations?

Mr. Crosland: We might consider that in particular cases. But I must insist that, given how complex and controversial the report is, it is much better for hon. Members on both sides of the House to know in detail the views of all parts of the industry before we finally make up our minds.

Airports (British Overseas Territories)

Mr. Fortescue: asked the President of the Board of Trade what facilities are normally provided by his Department at airports in British overseas territories.

Mr. William Rodgers: The provision of facilities is primarily the responsibility of the territory concerned. But in certain cases, taking into account, for example, the financial position of a territory, the Board does from time to time contribute to the cost involved.

Mr. Fortescue: Would not the Minister agree that in territories such as Hong Kong, to which much wanted tourist traffic is denied by the British Government's action in refusing landing rights to foreign airlines, there is a moral obligation on the British Government to help the Government of Hong Kong to provide facilities such as the lengthening of runways at Kaitak airport?

Mr. Rodgers: No, I do not accept that a moral obligation is involved. Some proposals about Hong Kong have been made to us and we are considering them.

Mr. Dalyell: To come a bit nearer home than Hong Kong, to the capital city of Scotland, can something be done urgently about Edinburgh airport and, in particular—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House did not know that Scotland was overseas.

Commonwealth Air Transport Council

Mr. Boston: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the meeting of the Commonwealth Air Transport Council.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he will make a statement about the recent meeting of the Commonwealth Air Transport Council.

Mr. William Rodgers: The meeting was a successful one. Nineteen members of the council and five British overseas territories were represented, and the very full agenda was usefully discussed.
With permission, I will arrange for some additional information to be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Boston: What progress is being made on noise certification? What action is being taken to obtain further international agreement on this? What international agreement is being sought on the problem of sonic bangs from supersonic airliners?

Mr. Rodgers: The conference was not concerned primarily with certification, because, as my hon. Friend knows, this is mainly a matter for the British, French and United States Governments. The problem of noise was certainly mentioned, including by myself when opening the conference. Good progress was made in discussing all the consequences of the development of Concorde and the operation of S.S.T.

Mr. Dalyell: At the Commonwealth Air Transport Council, was it considered appropriate to discuss the Commonwealth Games, which are to be held in Edinburgh in 1970? In particular, what is to be done about the ground landing equipment and the ground radar equipment and Trident installations at Edinburgh airport?

Mr. Rodgers: I very much regret that this very important item did not find its way on to the agenda.

Mr. Corfield: The hon. Gentleman said that good progress was made in discussions on the operation of Concorde. Can he say anything about what decisions were taken, or what recommendations were made, about the operation of Concorde at supersonic speeds over land?

Mr. Rodgers: The Council did not expect to reach decisions. It was convened largely in order to inform interested Governments of the progress which had been made in the United Kingdom. We shall keep them in touch in future, but we cannot expect just now


any decisions of the kind the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Following is the information:

The Seventh Meeting of the Commonwealth Air Transport Council was held at the premises of the Royal Commonwealth Society, Northumberland Avenue, W.C.2, from 3rd to 13th June, 1969.
2. The following member countries of the Council were represented:

Australia
Barbados
Canada
Ceylon
Cyprus
East African Community
Ghana
Guyana
India
Jamaica
Lesotho
Malawi
Mauritius
New Zealand
Nigeria
Pakistan
Sierra Leone
Singapore
United Kingdom.

Representatives from Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, Fiji, Hong Kong and Gibraltar also attended. Representatives from France and from the Commonwealth Secretariat were present by special invitation.
3. Observers from the United Kingdom aeronautical and electronic industries, Commonwealth airlines, the Air Registration Board and the British Airports Authority were present and contributed to discussion.
4. The first week of the Conference was devoted to discussion of the development of Concorde and the operation of SSTs. Later discussions included the introduction of jumbo jets, and future civil transport aircraft. Papers were presented by the United Kingdom, and by
Australia (Satellite communication)
Hong Kong (ATC requirements for SSTs and the impact of the jumbo jets on aerodrome design)
Singapore (Proposed routes to be operated by SSTs and Training requirements)
New Zealand (Hovercraft).

5. Delegates visited the BAC and Rolls-Royce works at Filton where they saw the Concorde assembly line and the Olympus 593 under test. They spent a day visiting RAE Farnborough and the National Gas Turbine Establishment and crossed the Channel to Calais in a SRN-4 hovercraft.

Aircraft Noise

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will institute discussions with the controllers of municipal and private airports on the question of aircraft noise, in order that

they may have the best available technological advice in preventing undue nuisance to the public living within the radius of such airports.

Mr. William Rodgers: As I said in reply to the hon. Member's question on 19th March, the Board of Trade is always prepared to give advice to aerodrome owners on ways to reduce aircraft noise disturbance. This advice takes account of the relevant technological factors.—[Vol 780, c. 104–5.]

Mr. Smith: Is the Minister aware that, with the trend towards greater use of municipal airports for private flying and training flying, the nuisance is increased to residents unfortunate enough to live in the area? Will he therefore do something more positive to help these people?

Mr. Rodgers: The arrangements which we have made for consultation at municipal airports are a good way in which local opinion can make its views known. At that stage a balance may be struck between what are sometimes competing interests.

Mr. Boston: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the progress being made with the social survey being carried out into the effects upon people of aircraft noise.

Mr. William Rodgers: We hope that the computer programmes needed for the analysis of this major sociological study will soon be ready.

Mr. Boston: Does my hon. Friend agree that serious doubts have arisen about the conclusions of the Wilson Committee on the noise and number index; and that people may be more widely affected than was previously thought? Does he agree that any conclusions on this arising as a result of the new survey need to be taken into account before a decision on the third London airport is reached?

Mr. Rodgers: This sociological study is in advance of anything which has been undertaken anywhere else in the world. We think that its results will be important. We shall seek to give priority to those of greatest interest to the Roskill Commission.

Mr. McMaster: Will the Minister say in this context the range within which houses can be situated to an airfield used by vertical take-off airliners, and whether it is possible for such an airliner carrying 100 or more passengers to take off from the centre of a city?

Mr. Rodgers: In all our discussions on noise we must certainly bear in mind the prospects of vertical take-off aircraft coming into operation in, say, ten years' time.

Mr. Corfield: Will the Minister bear in mind the importance of giving the House any information on this subject as soon as it is available?

Mr. Rodgers: Yes, we will tell the House all we can about the results of the studies.

OFFICIAL REPORT (CORRECTION)

Mr. Fortescue: On a point of order. I yield to none in my admiration of the daily miracle of HANSARD and when I do find an error, which is rare, my only reaction is one of astonishment. But I have to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, to the fact that in yesterday's OFFICIAL REPORT there was an error in which a gross injustice has been done to the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones).
By mistake, nearly all my remarks in the debate on the National Insurance (No. 2) Bill last night were attributed to him. Since perhaps he would not be fully in agreement with those remarks and since my manner of expression is certainly not worthy of him and since I would hate to detract from his triumph on the Divorce Reform Bill, I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to instruct that the necessary correction should be made.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has raised his point of order with becoming modesty. I quite understand the embarrassment to both hon. Members if one hon. Member's remarks were attributed to an hon. Member on the other side. The correction will be made. I am glad that the hon. Member took the opportunity of paying a tribute to those who report so assiduously and accurately what is said in the House. As the hon. Gentleman

has said, the miracle is that there are not more errors.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Mr. Speaker, I recollect that on one or two occasions in the past you have expressed the view that it is undesirable that late Questions should be tacked on to earlier Questions by Departments.
I notice today that Questions No. 70, 72 and 74, to the Board of Trade, were taken with an earlier Question. I do not raise this as any point of criticism, but I wanted to ask you whether this rule or advice still stands, or whether it has been changed.

Mr. Speaker: I might have had today an opportunity of invoking my own Ruling. It is not my practice to insist that an hon. Member who has down a late Question which is answered with an earlier one has the right to put a supplementary question.
I studied the matter carefully this morning, I watched the shape of questioning and it depended upon the shape of the questioning today. I was aware of the point and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has drawn my attention to it. It would otherwise be possible for a Question that was put down very late, say, Questions Nos. 70 or 75, precluding an hon. Member who had a question at, say, Nos. 30, 35 or 40.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that I watch this point carefully every day.

BILL PRESENTED

HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS)

Bill to provide for the making of a special report by the Boundary Commissions for England, Scotland and Wales constituted by the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949, for the amendment of the Representation of the People Acts, and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Ronald Bell; supported by Mr. John Hall, Mr. Airey Neave, Mr. Edward M. Taylor, and Mr. Peter Hordern; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday and to be printed. [Bill 178.]

TRAVEL TRADE REGISTRATION

3.35 p.m.

Mr. Edward Milne: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to register certain sections of the travel trade and to introduce a code of conduct for the travel trade.
I introduced a similar Bill on 30th May, 1962. I now seek to show greater necessity for this type of Bill than even at that time, despite repeated efforts of the trade to put its house in order.
On that occasion, I stated:
The Association of British Travel Agents and its code of conduct, the integrity, competence and high standard of service given by the profession will be the background to the standard needed in this flourishing industry".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, May, 1962; Vol. 660, c. 1365.]
There is little time to give figures, but everyone is aware of the mushroom-like growth of the travel trade in the past seven years. Despite the passage of time the fact must be faced that A.B.T.A. is still on trial. It has not yet demonstrated that it can and will deal with the problems of the future.
Arising from the efforts to introduce legislation to deal with the travel industry, and encouraged and assisted by the Board of Trade, A.B.T.A. introduced its "Operation Stabiliser" on 1st April, 1966, as a safeguard to holiday-makers faced with the loss of holidays and holiday money arising from liquidations and bankruptcies, but it still did not deal with many of the other problems arising in the travel trade.
From that date, many non-A.B.T.A. travel agents all over the country had the greatest difficulty in continuing to earn their livelihood, despite the fact that they had been long established and had given excellent service to the public. A leader in The Times on 13th August, 1964 said:
A trade association exists, first and foremost, to advance the commercial interests of its members, make it a closed shop, and its primary interest may diverge sharply from the public or of newcomers to the business.
The Minister of State, Board of Trade, in reply to an Adjournment debate raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) on 14th June, 1966, said:

I am aware that the introduction of 'Operation Stabiliser' has caused some disquiet, particularly among travel agents who are not members of A.B.T.A."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th June, 1966; Vol. 729, c. 1425.]
My hon. Friend repeated the assurance that he would not hesitate to act should it show signs of developing in an undesirable way.
I again introduced a Bill similar to the Bill which I seek to introduce today on 1st February, 1967. That was a day which you, Mr. Speaker, will recollect as the first of our morning sittings and the very first item of business in that experimental period. The Bill was given leave to be brought in by a substantial majority of the House, but was vigorously opposed by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) who, unfortunately, is today otherwise engaged, but I have given him notice of my intention to raise this matter.
On that occasion, the hon. Member said that the travel trade had been flogged to death with a good deal of exaggeration. He added that he knew something about the travel business, since he had an interest in it, and he referred to the rescue fund that had been set up for holiday makers by A.B.T.A., which at that time stood in the region of £100,000. At the beginning of this year the director general of A.B.T.A. stated that the payments from the common fund in 1967 had been made good and that no claims on the fund had been made in 1968. Nevertheless, he stated that the fund was still insufficient to meet the liabilities which are likely to be incurred in the event of a major failure in the height of the holiday season.
It is felt that there are imminent failures on the way to the knowledge of the travel trade and that liquidations are still proceeding. The figures I have mentioned have to be contrasted with a similar fund set up by the Danish Travel Trade, following the collapse of several large Scandinavian travel companies. The figure planned by the Danish travel agents is in the region of £500,000—a substantial increase on the amount felt to be needed by our own travel agencies.
The events of the past weekend have placed the travel trade and its major organisation at the cross roads. We read in the Travel Trade Gazette that the


Secretary-General of A.B.T.A. and his assistant are no longer in their posts.
In the same journal there is talk of the reasons for this crisis in A.B.T.A., including the expensive failure of the Economist Intelligence Unit Report, commissioned by the Association, and the lack of guidance given to A.B.T.A. members after the British Eagle failure.
One instance of the dangers inherent in the fact that A.B.T.A. is the only voice of the travel industry which is recognised by the Government, can be given by briefly citing a case being examined in conjunction with my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Arnold Shaw), where a travel agent in Jersey, whose name was circulated by A.B.T.A. on its special list at the end of 1967, found himself out of business, and an agency with a turnover of about £70,000 a year was closed down. The Board of Trade have since written to me saying that this was based on incorrect information. In fairness to all concerned, an inquiry or legislation is needed on this matter.
My Bill would also deal with holiday camps, into which a close inquiry is needed. Holiday camps are very helpful indeed to our balance of payments, to which reference was made at Question Time today, and proper supervision of them is necessary to give this country prestige abroad, as many foreign nationals are working within the travel industry.
As long ago as January, 1963, the Association of National Tourist Office Representatives in Great Britain supported a Bill of this kind as beneficial, not only to holiday makers in Britain, but to holidaymakers throughout the continent. The Bill would seek to give unshakable guarantees to the travelling public and to such parties with whom they contract. It would seek to provide indemnity for any failure on the part of a travel agent to produce the service and amenities for which he had contracted.
Knowing the tolerance and interest that the House takes in this subject, I ask, with confidence, for leave to be given to bring in the Bill.

3.43 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Jones: I followed with great interest the submission of the hon. Member for Blyth

(Mr. Milne). I know and, indeed, recognise the interest that he has brought to this subject over a long period. We all admire his sense of purpose and tenacity, but I hope to show briefly that these excellent attributes are misdirected and that much of what he seeks is already in operation.
The hon. Gentleman and I had the opportunity of debating the issues which lie at the root of his advocacy in September, 1967, at a weekend study course at Merton College, Oxford, organised by the Institute of Travel Agents. I was invited as a shareholder and director of a firm of travel agents. Clearly, my advocacy on that occasion did not achieve its purpose.
In his submission, the hon. Gentleman has extended the scope of his proposed Bill to include holiday camps. But I think that this matter is adequately dealt with, certainly concerning the points that he mentioned, in Part III, Clause 17, of the Development of Tourism Bill, which is going through the House, and is likely to reach its Report stage in the near future.
The two issues with which we are concerned essentially, as heretofore, are the proper conduct of their business by tour operators and travel agents and provision against the loss of public money. The introduction of "Operation Stabiliser" in October, 1965, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, is the key to the method by which A.B.T.A. hoped to achieve its objectives, and I think it has. "Operation Stabiliser" introduced this condition:
Tour operators who are members of A.B.T.A. shall appoint as agents and pay commission only to travel agents who are also members of A.B.T.A. and, secondly, travel agents who are members of A.B.T.A. shall sell tours and holidays as defined above only on behalf of tour operators who are members of A.B.T.A.".
Membership of A.B.T.A. must inevitably, to some extent, be selective, because it calls for knowledge and experience, but it is in no way intended to be restrictive, as the hon. Gentleman implied. It wills the means, and its success during the past four years clearly shows that it is able to secure the protection of the public. It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman should say that A.B.T.A. is still untried, because there is substantial evidence of success in what it is trying to do.
The hon. Gentleman made reference to his Adjournment debate on 13th December, 1965. The right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), who was then Minister of State, Board of Trade, said:
… we are now proposing to await some experience of how the travel trade and its structure are in practice being affected by the introduction of the A.B.T.A. 'Stabiliser Operation' … we do not feel that we should be justified in urging A.B.T.A. to reconsider its scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1965; Vol 722, c, 1053.]
That, I understand, is the position today. A.B.T.A. has not been asked to amend its scheme in any way by the Board of Trade.
This brings me to the second and equally important part of A.B.T.A.'s policy, namely, financial protection for the public. The Association introduced accountancy rules in October, 1964, followed by the establishment of a common fund in February, 1965. This immediately followed the attempt by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty), who failed in his efforts to secure a Travel Agents Bill which, at that time, had the support of A.B.T. A.
Members of A.B.T.A. subscribed to this common fund on the basis of their turnover. With a turnover up to £100,000, £12 10s. per annum; over £1,800,000, £125 per annum. These regulations produced about £30,000 a year with an agreed responsibility for a further call of a similar amount in the event of additional demands arising against the fund.
Costs against the common fund to date have been of a substantial character. Two tour operators were involved in August and September, 1967, totalling over £30,000, of which £4,700 had been recovered. There were also two retail agents, involving a total sum of just over £1,500.
Mr. Dennis Walsh, the Chairman of the Association of British Travel Agents, in a message to its members in April this year, said:
Since the Common Fund was established four years ago it has been the proud boast of our Association that no client of ours would lose an overseas holiday or be stranded abroad through the financial failure of an A.B.T.A. member. We believed that we had a moral

obligation to provide protection in this way to the members of the public who trust us with their holiday money. We also realised that such an assurance had a hard commercial value in building up public good will and confidence in our industry.
I think that it was a little unfair or ungenerous of the hon. Member for Blyth to refer to a leader in The Times as far back as 1964, because circumstances have changed so much since that time.
The fund now stands at £40,000, and annual contributions due on 31st July this year will bring the total to £70,000, against which there is a demand, due to the failure of Wrights Holidays Ltd., of Birmingham, which occurred in February this year, for an estimated £30,000. Surely A.B.T.A. is to be congratulated on its achievements over the past four to five years, in which it is recognised—certainly by myself—what an important part the hon. Member for Blyth has played.
Since 1962, the travel trade turnover, excluding insurance and freight, has risen from under £150 million to over £300 million for 1968. The measures taken by A.B.T.A. have, surely, in the main, given the hon. Gentleman what he wants. I see no point of substance which justifies a Bill such as he proposes, and I must, therefore, oppose it.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business), and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Edward Milne, Mr. Hugh D. Brown, Mr. Maurice Edelman, Mr. Robert Edwards, Mr. Arnold Gregory, Mr. James Hamilton, Mr. Will Owen, Mr. Laurence Pavitt, Mr. Arnold Shaw, and Mr. W. T. Williams.

TRAVEL TRADE REGISTRATION

Bill to register certain sections of the travel trade and to introduce a code of conduct for the travel trade; and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 20th June, and to be printed. [Bill 177.]

Orders of the Day — HOUSING BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Mr. Speaker: I have published my list of sleceted Amendments, as is my wont. We come now to new Clause 5.

Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have kindly indicated that we can discuss, as Amendments to the new Clause, Amendment (a), in line 1, leave out 'where' to 'powers' in line 3 and insert:
'a local authority have by resolution declared an area of land to be a general improvement area'.
Amendment (b), in line 1, leave out from 'have' to end of Clause and insert:

New Clause 5


PROTECTION AGAINST BLIGHT


5
Where, in pursuance of section 35 of this Act, a local authority have published information indicating that they propose to acquire any land in the exercise of their powers under this Part of this Act, sections 139 to 151 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 (protection of interests in land affected by planning proposals) shall have effect as if



(a) the land were included in that specified in subsection (1) of section 138 of that Act and its description in the definition of 'the specified descriptions' in subsection (5) of that section; and


10
(b) in section 139(3) of that Act 'the relevant date' were defined, in relation to on the land, as the date on which the information was first published;



and section 152 of that Act (no withdrawal of constructive notice to treat) shall have effect accordingly; and section 34 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1968 (power of mortgagee to serve blight notice) shall apply in relation to the land as it applies in relation to land of the descriptions mentioned in subsection (2) of that section.


—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.52 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I hope that I might move this Motion with some despatch, because I am sure that the Clause will be generally welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and also because, in part, it owes its existence to the advocacy of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page).

'declared an area to be a general improvement area then any person being the owner-occupier of any dwelling within that area may serve on the local authority concerned, at any time within six months from the date of the declaration, a notice in writing requiring such authority to purchase his interest in the dwelling whereupon the local authority shall be deemed to be authorised to acquire such interest compulsorily by compulsory purchase order in relation to which Part I of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 applies and to have served a notice to treat on the date upon which the owner-occupier served his notice by virtue of this clause'.

Amendment (c), in line 10, leave out from 'which' to end of line and insert 'the resolution was passed'.

May I ask that we might have Amendment (a) called for a Division if the Minister does not satisfy us?

Mr. Speaker: I am in a gentle mood at the moment. I am prepared to concede a Division on Amendment (a).

The position about compensation for blight as a result of planning procedures, as is well known to hon. Members who interest themselves in this problem, is broadly that if an owner-occupier, a small person, or indeed, a small businessman, occupying premises with a rateable value of £750 a year is adversely affected by what appears to be a fairly precise indication that at some stage the land on which the premises are situated will be acquired, he can in certain circumstances serve a notice asking the appropriate public body to purchase.

Normally speaking, the categories are the case of land comprised in a compulsory purchase order, or where there is a firm indication that land under a structure plan, as it will be in future, or under a development plan sometimes in the past, is likely to be acquired by a public body. The public body has the opportunity of serving a counter-notice that, in the end the land is not likely to be required.

As the law stands, it would not be possible to apply the blighting provisions in improvement areas. Improvement areas are only just being defined and discussed in the Bill. When this matter was first considered by the Government, it was considered not necessary to include this provision, for the simple reason that the declaration of an improvement area will, in most cases, have an extremely beneficial effect on the area as a whole because here, by quite substantial grants, owner-occupiers will be encouraged to improve their houses to bring them up to a very high standard.

Furthermore, by the environmental grant, with the help of substantial Treasury backing, there will be the equivalent of a maximum of £100 per house to be spent on improving the neighbourhood. Consequently, the last thing that will normally happen when an improvement area is declared is any deterioration in the value of property.

Subsequently, the hon. Member for Crosby pointed out that there might occasionally be the case where, after the resolution had been passed under Clause 32, and the declaration under Clause 35 made about details of the improvement area, some property was affected, and that in these circumstances—although such cass will be rare—an owner might find difficulty in getting the market price for his property.

The sort of thing that one has in mind is where there is a derelict piece of land and if the end house next to it were added, or if the area of the land on which that house stands were added to the derelict piece of land, it would be possible to make a play space, or a small garden, or something which would improve the quality of the environment.

In those circumstances, it is possible that an owner-occupier or small business man might be in difficulty. The Clause will provide a suitable opportunity for a

local authority to make its position clear by a counter-notice if the land is not to be ultimately acquired, and for the small man to claim the blight provisions. I hope, therefore, that the Clause will receive general approbation.

In view of this substantial Clause, in the sense that it can cover any real hardship, I hope that the Opposition will not press their Amendments. I say that for two reasons. First, if they press them, they might find that they would have an unfortunate effect upon the determination of some local authorities to go ahead with improvement areas. One Amendment would enable any owner-occupier in an improvement area to serve a notice on the local authority requiring it to purchase. I think that some authorities would not want to face a situation in which, under the Amendment as drafted, they have no option to refuse. There is no question of serving a counter-notice. They might have to buy a large number of properties which they do not require, and therefore it would be difficult to say that any hardship arose. The whole point is to deal with hardship.

The other Amendment would give a similar provision, but in respect of any land within the improvement area. Again, unless one can say that there is hardship in this, there is the opportunity for a local authority to serve its counter-notice. It would be making the blight provisions go very wide indeed, with the result that it could have a seriously inhibiting effect on local authorities and their determination of the areas. That is all I say now, but I am sure that the Clause will be generally welcomed.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that we have a mass of work ahead of us. Reasonably brief speeches, and reasonably brief debates, will help.

Mr. Hugh Rossi: We are grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for the concession he has made in seeking to meet the real objections that we raised in Committee. This Clause was foreshadowed by new Clause 11, which was moved in Committee. We are, however, somewhat disappointed, because the Clause does not follow some of the assurances that we thought we received on that occasion.
New Clause 11 which I moved in Committee—and the hon. Gentleman will find


this at col. 865—proposed that any person having an interest in any dwelling included in a general improvement area might serve notice on a local authority at any time within six months of the making of the declaration, and that following on the service of that notice the local authority would be obliged to acquire that person's interest, following the general law that exists where a clearance area has been made.
4.0 p.m.
The cogent objection of the Parliamentary Secretary, in Committee, was that to give this right to a person with any interest in any house might be far too wide and unworkable. He suggested that consideration might be given to tabling on Report a new Clause limiting this right to the owner-occupier. As a result of that, Amendment (b) was tabled to the new Clause.
It seeks to give the owner-occupier of any dwelling within an area prescribed by a local authority as a general improvement area the right to serve a six months' notice, as suggested in the new Clause which we discussed in Committee and which I thought was acceptable, apart from the description of the interests in respect of which this procedure could be adopted. It is, therefore, disappointing that, since we have tried to meet the objections expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee, he proposes on Report to narrow the field of operation still further.
Only Amendment (b) deals with the owner-occupier. The other Amendments deal with the point in time when a person affected can serve notice on the local authority requiring it to buy the house. The new Clause states that the right to serve the notice can arise only when the local authority says that it wants the property and has published information under Clause 35 saying, "We intend at some time to acquire the property". When that happens, the individual concerned can say, "Do not let us wait until you are ready. Buy it from me now".
We suggest in the Amendments that as soon as the local authority declares an area to be a general improvement area, whether or not it says that it may want to acquire later, the owner of any property in the area should be able to

say to the authority, "If you want to make this a general improvement area, take my property from me, whether or not you say that you will acquire it at some future time".
The Government's attitude is that the initiative must always rest with the local authority, which can say, "We wish to acquire" and the owner can say, "Please acquire it now". We say that, whether or not the local authority exercises this power, an individual who may be affected in a variety of ways by the declaration of a general improvement area should be able to say, "As you want to do something in this area which may detrimentally affect my property, you should acquire the house now. Here is a notice requesting you do so".

Mr. Skeffington: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that under the compensation provisions it should be possible for public authorities to purchase even when there is no element of hardship? If that is his argument, he will realise that that would be an enormous extension of the commitment with which local authorities might be faced in many developments. That has never been the basis of compensation up to now.

Mr. Rossi: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman assumes that there will be hardship only when the local authority says that it will acquire the property. Hardship can also be caused when the general improvement area declaration is made, because that gives many powers to local authorities, apart from the power of acquisition which we are discussing.
The mere fact that a local authority says, "We are declaring this to be a general improvement area", which immediately gives the authority all the powers contained in Clause 36, could well blight property in the area. Individuals concerned may easily find that there is no longer a market for their property, whether or not the local authority intends to buy. If the local authority wishes to exercise its power to carry out works on the property, it may discourage other people from buying it.
Therefore, I urge the Government to consider that hardship can easily arise outside the intended exercise of acquisition powers by a local authority. It can arise by the mere declaration of a development area. I urge the Government


to accept one or more of the Amendments. Judging from the intervention of the Parliamentary Secretary, it would appear that he has made up his mind. In accordance with what you said, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to keep battering at a door which is firmly shut. However, I hope that my comments and those of my colleagues will have persuaded the Minister to reconsider the matter and to satisfy himself about whether hardship can arise in circumstances other than in the case of acquisition. If he so satisfies himself, I urge him to have second thoughts and perhaps table an Amendment in another place.

Mr. Speaker: I should like to point out to the House that this is the first of at least 40 debates which we are to have on Report.

Mr. Martin Maddan: It seemed to me that the Parliamentary Secretary answered the objections in his speech when he intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi). He said in his speech that cases of fright of blight in improvement areas would be few and far between. We can take it, therefore, that there will be even fewer instances of fright of blight when the local authority does not declare that it wishes to purchase.
The hon. Gentleman said that we might be opening the door wide to an enormous number of demands to purchase. What he has said since shows that that could not happen. There would be only a restricted number of cases, albeit important cases for the occupiers.

Mr. Skeffington: That is not what the Amendment says. It provides that, once a declaration was made, any owner-occupier would be able to serve a notice requiring the local authority to purchase and the local authority would not have, as it has under general compensation law, the right to serve a counter-notice.

Mr. Maddan: That brings me to my second point, which is that presumably owner-occupiers would want a local authority to purchase their property only if they had fright of blight. Otherwise, why would they want their property purchased? The Parliamentary Secretary will not, for fear of letting the horse bolt out of the stable, even let the mouse run out from beneath the stable door. I detect in his interventions a complete

non sequitur. I support the Amendment and hope that the hon. Gentleman will have second thoughts on the subject.

Mr. James Allason: The Government have always been unwilling to extend the blight provisions. Here they are extending them, but only an extraordinarily small amount.
The circumstances which we are discussing are similar to those applying to roads, and in that connection, if there is a plan that a road will at a future time be laid down, an owner can claim blight. In exactly the same way, if a local authority says, "We intend at a future date to purchase your property", the owner can, under this concession, claim blight.

Mr. Maddan: Is it not a fact that a local authority need not have determined that it will buy property for a new road at a future date, but merely say that there is a chance that it will buy the property to entitle the owner to require it to purchase the property?

Mr. Allason: That is so in the case of roads. I suggest that the situation we are discussing is broadly similar and that, for this reason, the Government should be prepared to go further.
Eventually, the Government will be forced to extend the blight provisions. In the case of motorways, they have had to give an indication that they are having second thoughts about the blight provisions because they recognise the harm that can be done to the owners of land and property immediately beside motorways. We are discussing a parallel case. If there is a general improvement area there may be injurious affection and any owner, not merely owners whose land is to be taken from them at a future date, should be entitled to claim blight if he is in the area concerned.
The Parliamentary Secretary's answer to our claim is that this would be unfair to local authorities, which would have to face too many notices. To whom should we be unfair, if we must be unfair to somebody? I suggest that the onus should be placed on the local authority and that, if it wishes to damage somebody's prospects, it should be prepared to pay compensation. To that argument the Parliamentary Secretary replies, "There may not be any damage". Does


he really believe that a person whose interests are not being damaged will say to a local authority, "I require you to purchase my house"?

Mr. Skeffington: That is precisely what the Amendment says. That is why it is unworkable and completely against the compensation principles.

Mr. Allason: The hon. Gentleman's argument is that there is no need to prove damage before requiring a local authority to purchase. I am asking him to say what sensible man would require a local authority to purchase if no damage was being caused. He would be able to sell his property on the market. If damage is being caused, it is reasonable to expect the local authority to pay compensation. We are, in terms of compensation for blight and injurious affection, moving into a new era and I therefore support the Amendment.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: This is an extremely important matter. In Committee, we discussed the entirely new concept of the general improvement area. My hon. Friends welcome this new experimental form of development but, because it is experimental, we cannot expect to have got it exactly right in Committee. I therefore make no excuse for questioning the new Clause in an effort to put right some of the defects to which we referred in Committee.
We are grateful to the Government for having tabled the new Clause. However, there are still some defects in this new experimental procedure, particularly in regard to the effects that it will have on the property owner and occupier.
In discussing the new Clause and Amendment—I wish particularly to concentrate on Amendment (a) which would overcome some of the points raised in the Parliamentary Secretary's interventions—we are dealing with something which originated in 1959, which was embodied in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, and which was amended in the 1968 Act.
The general intention of the procedure of a purchase notice when property is blighted is that an owner, and particularly an owner-occupier, should be given the right, if he cannot sell his property because it is required for the benefit of

the community, to call on the local authority which will eventually acquire it to acquire it immediately.
When that general principle was embodied in legislation it did not go as far as the general statement which I have made. Limitations were placed on it. For example, one had to discover whether the road or whatever it might be interfering with the property was marked on a plan, and whether there was an order for compulsory purchase. The 1962 Act was so narrowly drawn that only under certain circumstances could one serve a purchase notice and take advantage of the provisions about blight.
These limitations have been resented over the years, but there has always been this safeguard against any abuse of the right given in the 1962 Act; that the person who served the notice on the local authority must show that, by reason of the blight, he had been unable to sell his property at the price which he might reasonably have expected to get for it had the property not been so blighted. That is the safeguard and that is the way in which the interventions of the Parliamentary Secretary should he met.
The general improvement area, which is the scheme created by the Bill, extends actual blight; that is, any property within an area declared as a general improvement area may be subject to blight. It may not be possible for the owner to sell his property at the reasonable price which he would have expected had it not been included in the general improvement area.
We hope that the previous mistake which was made in embodying this sort of principle in legislation will not be made again and that we will not be too restrictive in stating when property is legally blighted, for frequently we find that a property is actually blighted but is not legally blighted, with the result that a purchase notice cannot be served on the acquiring authority.
An extension of the principle, from what I call "legal blight" to "actual blight", was recognised in the 1968 Act and it is in that spirit that we seek to amend the new Clause. The 1968 Act said that property would be blighted—and, therefore, a purchase notice could be served—if the land was indicated in a structure plan for the district in which


it was situated, either as land which might be acquired for the functions of a Government Department, local authority, and so on. That is much the same as will happen under a declaration for a general improvement area. It will be put into an area in which the local authority may take any steps for improving that area, and certainly steps by way of compulsory purchase.
I join issue with the Parliamentary Secretary on two points he made when introducing the new Clause. He said that the blight provisions applied to two categories of restriction: first, if there was a compulsory purchase order placed on property, or if it was indicated that it would be subject to a compulsory purchase order; and, secondly, if a structure plan showed that it was likely to be acquired.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that that was not what was said in the 1968 Act. It said that it was land which "may be required" by an acquiring authority. If it is included in a general improvement area it comes exactly within that sort of description; it may be required by an acquiring authority at some time in the future to improve the area, for example for an open space or to improve roads. I put the general improvement area directly alongside a structure plan—and, having recognised that principle in the Act, I ask that we recognise it again in this Bill.
The second point on which I take issue with the hon. Gentleman is when he said that if we amended the new Clause as suggested by my hon. Friends—I particularly have in mind Amendment (a)—it would be a deterrent to local authorities to declare general improvement areas. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is wrong, because one would have the safeguard that the person who served a purchase notice must prove that he had suffered.
The safeguard in Section 139 of the1962 Act is that to succeed with a purchase

notice against an acquiring authority the person must prove that, since the relevant date, he has made reasonable endeavours to sell his interest and has been unable to do so, except at a price substantially less than he might reasonably have been expected to have got if no part of the hereditament or unit was comprised in the scheme. Unless the owner can show that, his purchase notice fails and that is the safeguard against abuse of this procedure.

It may be, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, that the declaration of a general improvement area will enhance the value of property in the area. There may be occasions when it is clear that property will not be touched for an open space, road improvement, the provision of walkways, and so on, so that its value will be enhanced because the tone of the neighbourhood will go up.

In many cases, however, the value will be damaged, and it is in those cases that we should preserve the right of the owner to serve a purchase notice, whether or not there is an immediate intention that his property will be subject to compulsory purchase. He should be entitled, if he can prove that he cannot sell it at a reasonable price, to serve a notice on the acquiring authority and ask it to purchase it from him at that stage.

I am sure that acceptance of Amendment (a) would not damage the new Clause, but improve it, and certainly improve the rights of individuals affected by a general improvement area declaration.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause accordingly read a Second time.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Clause, in line 1, leave out from the word 'where' to the word 'powers' in line 3, and insert 'a local authority have by resolution declared an area of land to be a general improvement area'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 119, Noes 201.

Division No. 268.]
AYES
[4.25 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Black, Sir Cyril
Bullus, Sir Eric


Astor, John
Blaker, Peter
Burden, F. A.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Braine, Bernard
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Brewis, John
Carlisle, Mark


Bell, Ronald
Brinton, Sir Tafton
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert


Biffen, John
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Clark, Henry




Clegg, Walter
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pink, R. Bonner


Cooke, Robert
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Pounder, Rafton


Corfield, F. V.
Jopling, Michael
Prior, J. M. L.


Costain, A. P.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Pym, Francis


Crouch, David
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Russell, Sir Ronald


Dodds-Parker, Dougles
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
MacArthur, Ian
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Errington, Sir Eric
McMaster, Stanley
Speed, Keith




Stainton, Keith


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McNair-Wilson, Michael (W'stow, E.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Fortescue, Tim
Maddan, Martin
Tapsell, Peter


Foster, Sir John
Maginnis, John E.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Maude, Angus
Temple, John M.


Goodhart, Philip
Mawby, Ray
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Gower, Raymond
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Grant, Anthony
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John




Waddington, David


Grieve, Percy
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Monro, Hector
Ward, Dame Irene


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Montgomery, Fergus
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
More, Jasper
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Hastings, Stephen
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hawkins, Paul
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh



Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Heseltine, Michael
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Wright, Esmond


Higgins, Terence L.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wylie, N. R.


Hill, J. E. B.
Nott, John
Younger, Hn. George


Holland, Philip
Onslow, Cranley



Hordern, Peter
Page, Graham (Crosby)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Percival, Ian
Mr. Reginald Eyre.


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pike, Miss Mervyn





NOES


Abse, Leo
Dunnett, Jack
Kenyon, Clifford


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ellis, John
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Alldritt, Walter
English, Michael
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Anderson, Donald
Ensor, David
Lawson, George


Archer, Peter
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Leadbitter, Ted


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Fernyhough, E.
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lipton, Marcus


Barnett, Joel
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Loughlin, Charles


Bidwell, Sydney
Ford, Ben
Lubbock, Eric


Binns, John
Forrester, John
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Bishop, E. S.
Freeson, Reginald
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Blackburn, F.
Gardner, Tony
McCann, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ginsburg, David
MacColl, James


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Macdonald, A. H.



Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
McGuire, Michael


Booth, Albert
Gregory, Arnold
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Boyden, James
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)


Bradley, Tom
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mackintosh, John P.


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Brooks, Edwin
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
MacPherson, Malcolm


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hannan, William
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Harper, Joseph
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Cant, R. B.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Manuel, Archie


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hazell, Bert
Mapp, Charles


Concannon, J. D.
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Marks, Kenneth


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hooley, Frank
Marquand, David


Crawshaw, Richard
Hooson, Emlyn
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Horner, John
Mayhew, Christopher


Dalyell, Tam
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Huckfield, Leslie
Mendelson, John


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Millan, Bruce


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hynd, John
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Delargy, Hugh
Janner, Sir Barnett
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Dell, Edmund
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Dempsey, James
Jeger, George (Goole)
Neal, Harold


Dewar, Donald
Johnson, Carol (Lewisliam, S.)
Newens, Stan


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ogden, Eric


Dickens, James
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
O'Malley, Brian


Dobson, Ray
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Oram, Albert E.


Doig, Peter
Judd, Frank
Orbach, Maurice


Dunn, James A.
Kelley, Richard
Orme, Stanley







Oswald, Thomas
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Tuck, Raphael


Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Ryan, John
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Palmer, Arthur
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Sheldon, Robert
Wallace, George


Pardoe, John
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Watkins, David (Consett)


Park, Trevor
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Wellbeloved, James


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Silverman, Julius
White, Mrs. Eirene


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Skefflngton, Arthur
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Pentland, Norman
Slater, Joseph
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Small, William
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Snow, Julian
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Spriggs, Leslie
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Price, William (Rugby)
Steel, David (Roburgh)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Probert, Arthur
Steete, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Woof, Robert


Rankin, John
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John



Rees, Merlyn
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Symonds, J. B.
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Taverne, Dick
Mr. Ernest G. Perry.


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Tinn, James

Clause added to the Bill.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Arising out of new Clause No. 9—Rents for rehousing—I am not querying the selection, which I accept must be in the hands of Mr. Speaker, but the three areas referred to—slum clearance, improvement, and comprehensive development areas—have a constituency bearing as 1,574 families in my constituency need to be rehoused and would be affected. Would I be in order to raise the constituency matter on the Adjournment to cover the specific case which prompted that new Clause?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): That point is not one for the Chair. The hon. Member can raise the matter on the Adjournment only so long as he so deals with it that it is not a matter affecting legislation.

New Clause 10

TRANSFERABILITY OF APPROVAL OF GRANT

The benefit of an approval, by a local authority, of a grant under Part I of this Act may be transferred (subject to the obligations arising therefrom) by the person entitled to that benefit to any person who has such an interest in the land to which the approval relates as is described in sections 2(6), 8(4) and 17(3) of the said Act and the transferor and transferee shall give notice to the local authority of such transfer.—[Mr. Clegg.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Walter Clegg: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This is an absolutely splendid new Clause, a very practical one which would

cut out a great deal of red tape and lead to much smoother administration. It would be of great benefit to all concerned. I shall be very surprised and dejected if the Minister does not agree that it should form part of the Bill.
The problem which faces us is due to the fact that under the present law and under the Bill, if a grant is made to an applicant in respect of premises that grant will be in personam to that person and not in rem. It would be impossible for a grant in personam to be transferred and this would lead to great inconvenience. One often sees advertisements in newspapers—I saw one in my constituency over the weekend—in which a country cottage is advertised. The advertisement I saw said clearly that the cottage was in bad repair but grants would be available for it to be repaired. It did not, of course, say what the grants would be or what amount would be available.
It would be much more convenient if, before he sold, the owner could make application to the local authority and have the grants and plans approved so that he could go to the market saying what amount of grant there would be. Then the purchaser would have the advantage of knowing the amount of money concerned. A great deal of time spent in negotiation would be saved. The matter would be certain and it would save a lot of correspondence between solicitors and estate agents if the grants could be transferred with the property in the same way as planning permission is transferred.
At present, if the vendor obtained a grant and before he took advantage of it he sold the house, a new application


would be required by the purchaser. That would have to go before a committee and be approved by the local authority, whereas under this Clause the benefit would be transferable. This is analogous to planning permission affecting property having the right of transferability.
It would be different if the applicant's means had to be taken into account, but this is not so. It comes back to the point that these grants are designed to improve property. They are grants in rem. Difficulties may arise because of Clauses which bring in the three-year rule. The grant having been made, under the provisions of Clause 13 the property must be available for letting or be occupied by the applicant or a member of his family, but Clause 13 would not make it too difficult to give effect to the new Clause.
Especially in the case of discretionary and improvement grants, during the course of work, and before the whole grant has been paid, because of death or illness it may be necessary for the work to be stopped and the property to be sold. It would be useful if there were power which there would be if the Clause were accepted to transfer the remainder of the grant to the person who was to do the work.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Allason: It is not very satisfactory to make a case against the Government and then to receive no answer. On the last Clause it was stated that the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary was inaccurate, but we received no reply. I hope that we shall receive an answer on this occasion.
The process of obtaining a grant is liable to be lengthy. Even when a grant has been obtained it is not always possible for the builder to move in and do the repairs and improvements quickly A long period may elapse between the time of application and the time of payment of grant. Under the present system, during that time the house cannot change hands. This period, which may be as long as a year, is far too long. Death or illness may supervene requiring a change of ownership, but as the Bill is drafted during that time ownership of the house must remain in existing hands.
Then there is the question whether someone who has obtained approval for payment of grant should be able to sell the property. Planning permission follows ownership, but not so the grant. The Parliamentary Secretary may say that it is normal to discuss these matters with officials and for verbal undertakings to be given that the conditions for grant are satisfactory and the purchaser should be so informed. This is not good enough, because the would-be purchaser of a tumble-down property needs to know before he puts his money down that he can get the grant. It is not fair for him to be asked to buy what may well be a pig in a poke.
We want the Bill to work and we want property to be improved. One method of improving property is for an owner who is not able to improve his property to sell it to somebody who is willing to fulfil the conditions of the grant and so improve the property. I hope that the Government will accept the Clause.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): The hon. Member for North' Fylde (Mr. Clegg) knows that if my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary could have accepted his Amendment in Committee he, of all people, would have done so, but he was not able to do so. I am in the same position. The hon. Gentleman referred to the three-year limit on sales. That is not a relevant argument, and I shall not use it. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to Amendment No. 24, which may interest him.
This is a discretionary grant. There is no problem with standard grants. The problem arises with discretionary grants. Personal considerations may well arise which influence the local authority in deciding whether to make a discretionary grant. My opposition to the Clause was confirmed by the hon. Gentleman's statement that property advertisements sometimes state that grants are likely to be available. The hon. Gentleman said that owners cannot firmly state that a grant attaches to property.
I welcome that, because it would be unfortunate if a sort of speculation in grants grew up, with people applying for grants and then advertising their property for sale and cashing in on the availability


of grant. The applicant for the grant might be living in the area of the local authority; and, because he was a well-established local resident, the local authority might think that it was worth spending money to provide him with a home, perhaps near his work. A person coming in might be looking for a holiday cottage and would be able to buy it on the strength of the grant at a greatly increased price.

Mr. Clegg: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that that would be a reason for refusing the grant?

Mr. MacColl: It certainly is a reason for refusing a grant. In some cases local authorities have said, "We do not think that we should use our discretion to provide a home for somebody coming into our area, although we would think it right to do so for someone already living in our area". That might apply in a village where they were trying to restrict the population.
These things can best be sorted out by accepting the principle that the grant goes to the applicant who is responsible for seeing that the work is done. If he cannot live in the house there are ways in which he can get rid of it. I could not advise the House to agree to this general power to pass on the grant.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: I do not think that we can accept this argument. I know nothing about grants in personam and in rem. This is a grant for improving houses. This is what the Bill is about. It is something that I have been wanting for a long time. This would speed things up, because it must simplify the work of solicitors. Sometimes they do seem to have inordinate delays in their work. As an estate agent, I know how important it is to be able to be clear to the purchaser about what the exact position is. If he knows that application has been made and is likely to be granted, or refused, then it is a great advantage.
This long delay which can arise as a result of not allowing the transfer, will mean that properties will stand empty and derelict. We will have what is happening in London now—people occupying these empty homes. We cannot blame people for this if they see property standing empty when they are

living in horrible conditions with several children. They naturally feel aggrieved for their family and take these steps. This Clause will help solicitors and the local authorities. It will relieve the immense burden of paper work, and I ask the Minister to look at it again and to put forward something which could overcome these immense delays.

Mr. Maddan: The Parliamentary Secretary missed an important point in his reply. Let me accept for the purposes of the argument, although I will contest it later, that because these are discretionary grants a local authority might give a grant in respect of a house to one owner but would not do so to another. Suppose that for some reason the occupier who has been given a grant has to move away. The person who comes into the house could be a rich, retired farmer, and it could be done on a family basis. It might be said, "Look, my house is empty, go and live in it". Alternatively, it could be sold.
In the first instance, although the new resident might have been entirely unacceptable to the local authority, he would benefit from public money, because the grant would still be given. In the second case, all the difficulties to which reference has been made would arise and new occupiers might find themselves without a grant, or a house while the whole thing was renegotiated.
Let us accept that discretionary grants are made at a certain time for a certain set of circumstances and that once they are made they remain. It does not make any difference what happens afterwards. In the case I have mentioned, suppose the person who is given the grant carried out the improvements while in residence and left the next day. What difference does it make? Someone else will enter the house and get the benefit of the grant.
We must accept, regrettably, that in the dispensing of public funds there may be areas to which funds go and there may be a "hit and miss" element about it. Once it has gone through, the anomalies arising from not doing what this new Clause suggests are greater than the anomalies which would arise from adopting the new Clause. I hope that the Government will look at this again. Everyone wants to see an improvement made in the standards of old property.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Peter Walker: This is an important new Clause. I was surprised at the Parliamentary Secretary's comments on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg). There are important applications here, and I would like to ask a few questions, to which I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will reply. He says that this has an effect only on discretionary grants. I presume that he means by that that under the standard grant the new person could apply in any case and would be entitled to obtain the grant. But it does apply to standard grants, in terms of the reduction of bureaucracy. Under the system advocated by the Government, although a standard grant has been agreed, for, say, a bathroom in a particular house, if that house is sold a great deal of further bureaucracy has to be gone through so that the grant can be used by someone else.
If the Government's case is that it does not matter about standard grants, then they should accept this as it relates to standard grants only. Does the Parliamentary Secretary not think that it would be a good idea, in the interests of the Government, to have such a new Clause and to get rid of this bureaucracy?

Mr. A. P. Costain: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the situation that can arise when a person who has been given a grant dies and work has already started?

Mr. Walker: That is another point. I am obliged to my hon. Friend.
It may be that my next point is already covered by legislation, but what is the situation about dependants? What happens if the husband who has been given the grant dies, leaving a widow? Can the local authority, having granted a discretionary or standard grant, take it away? If the Government are unwilling to accept our overall argument, there is some scope for including provisions for widows, if they are not covered already.
I was surprised when the Minister talked about local authorities as if it was important for them in dealing with discretionary grants, to take into consideration the standing of the individual. This has never come up before. I would refer the Parliamentary Secretary to the

pamphlet published by the Government "The Money to Modernise your Home". This sets out ways in which the public can obtain the grants, but nowhere is there any implication that the local authority will give consideration to the status or position of the individual when dealing with discretonary grants.
Recallng previous debates in Committee, I cannot think of a time when anyone said that this would be a criteria. It is a dangerous policy. I had always understood the objects on both sides of the House to be that the Bill should improve old houses as speedily as possible. There is a Labour Party myth about the country cottage being something that they must not do anything for, because it is being used as a second home. I am all in favour of providing second homes, even with grants, rather than allowing houses to become derelict. If there is the option between a cottage becoming derelict or becoming a country home for a family, I would prefer the latter course.
In any case, local authorities are not in a position to judge this. If we worked on this basis the prospective purchaser of a cottage would tell the owner to obtain the grant, carry out the work and then he would buy it. I want to see old houses improved. The transference of the grant, whoever purchases the premises once it has been granted, must be a practical and sensible way of doing that.
The Parliamentary Secretary expressed horror at the possibility of advertisements saying that a building carried a grant. Advertisements appear all the time saying that land carries planning permission. The principle is exactly the same. On the hon. Gentleman's argument, planning permission should not be transferred, but attached to a person rather than the land. We can see the absurdities and horrors of that. The Government have not given enough consideration to this. They have not realised that they will cause hardship. There will be cases when improvements cannot be carried out, due to a sudden change in the fortune in the families which have applied for the grant. The whole operation of the Bill will be motivated against those people.
On standard grants, it is in the Government's interest to cut out bureaucracy. On discretionary grants, if we want to modernise houses as quickly as possible,


we need a system of grants applied to improving houses. If houses are improved, Governments of all complexions should rejoice that they have been improved. Finally, on the technical point about widows and dependants of people given grants, what will be their legal position, and what are the Government's comments on the situation?

5.0 p.m.

Mr. MacColl: I hope that I can help the hon. Gentleman on the factual points that he has raised.
I deal, first, with the position of a widow. In practice, local authorities arrange that a widow succeeds to the rights of the applicant, as the legal personal representative of the applicant, and I have had no complaints that widows have not had the grants. Nor have I had complaints from local authorities about the bureaucracy involved over the standard grant. I have had no suggestions from local authorities that they are dissatisfied with the present machinery or think that it puts a burden on them.

Mr. Graham Page: It may be that no complaints from local authorities or from individuals about dependants being entitled have reached the hon. Gentleman. However, I gather that the legal position is that, if a person to whom a grant has been given dies, no one is entitled legally to succeed to it, whatever the lack of complaints may have been.

Mr. MacColl: I prefer to put it the other way. I would not want to make a positive assertion that they have legal rights but I can say with confidence that I know of no case where it has raised difficulty. I would be glad to hear of any case where it has, because that would be an important point.
The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) also raised the question about the standing of the individual. The difficulty is that in many cases a grant could be given reasonably to the successor of the original applicant. If a man goes to a local authority saying that he is thinking of buying a property and he asks what are the chances, quite often the local authority says that it will continue

the grant. However, that is different from presuming a legal right to it. These points often arise in places where there are population restrictions or where a local authority wants to help people in a village who work on the land, for example.

The hon. Gentleman asked, why not adopt the principle applied to planning permissions. Planning permission is sometimes personal for that reason. Much as it is sometimes necessary to make a permission personal, if it was cut and dried, it could be administered mechanically. It could be made part of the standard grant, and not discretionary. Once it becomes necessary to bring in the element of discretion, a local authority should be left with the power, if it chooses, not to renew a grant for the successor.

Mr. Peter Walker: With the permission of the House, I find the Minister's reply—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot speak again if the Minister has sat down.

Mr. MacColl: I have.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I apologise. The hon. Gentleman's name is to the Amendment.

Mr. Peter Walker: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I asked the leave of the House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not the practice of the House to concede that right to an hon. Member except with a special explanation as well as the leave of the House.

Mr. Peter Walker: In view of the fact that the Minister spoke twice, I wonder—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is well precedented in Erskine May. This right is conceded to the Minister, but not to anyone else.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 142, Noes 184.

Division No. 269.]
AYES
[5.10 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Bankston Ash)
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Bell, Ronald


Astor, John
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Biffen, John




Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Heseltine, Michael
Pardoe, John


Black, Sir Cyril
Higgins, Terence L.
Percival, Ian


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Hill, J. E. B.
Pike, Mis Mervyn


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Pink, R. Bonner


Braine, Bernard
Holland, Philip
Pounder, Rafton


Brewis, John
Hordern, Peter
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hornby, Richard
Prior, J. M. L.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hunt, John
Pym, Francis


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bullus, Sir Eric
Iremonger, T. L.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Burden, F. A.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Carlisle, Mark
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Silvester, Frederick


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jopling, Michael
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Clark, Henry
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Speed, Keith


Clegg, Walter
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Stainton, Keith


Cooke, Robert
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Corfield, F. V.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Costain, A. P.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Tapsell, Peter


Crouch, David
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lubbock, Eric
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Currie, G. B. H.
MacArthur, Ian
Temple, John M.


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
McMaster, Stanley
Tilney, John


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
McNair-Wilson, Michael (W'stow, E.)



Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maddan, Martin
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Errington, Sir Eric
Maginnis, John E.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Eyre, Reginald
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Waddington, David


Fisher, Nigel
Maude, Angus
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mawby, Ray
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Fortescue, Tim
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Ward, Dame Irene


Foster, Sir John
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Goodhart, Philip
Monro, Hector
Wiggin, A. W.


Gower, Raymond
Montgomery, Fergus
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Grant, Anthony
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Grieve, Percy
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Hall-Davis, A. C. F.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wright, Esmond


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Naharro, Sir Gerald
Wylie, N. R.


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Younger, Hn. George


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael



Hastings, Stephen
Nott, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hattersley, Roy
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Hawkins, Paul
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Jasper More.


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Page, John (Harrow, W.)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Anderson, Donald
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Hannan, William


Archer, Peter
Delargy, Hugh
Harper, Joseph


Armstrong, Ernest
Dell, Edmund
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Dempsey, James
Hazell, Bert


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Dewar, Donald
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Hooley, Frank


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dickens, James
Horner, John


Barnett, Joel
Dobson, Ray
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Doig, Peter
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James


Binns, John
Dunn, James A.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Bishop, E. S.
Dunnett, Jack
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Blackburn, F.
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hynd, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ellis, John
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
English, Michael
Janner, Sir Barnett


Booth, Albert
Ensor, David
Jeger, George (Goole)


Boyden, James
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Bradley, Tom
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Brooks, Edwin
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Judd, Frank


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Ford, Ben
Kelley, Richard


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Forrester, John
Kenyon, Clifford


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Freeson, Reginald
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Gardner, Tony
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Cant, R. B.
Garrett, W. E.
Lawson, George


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Ginsburg, David
Leadbitter, Ted


Concannon, J. D.
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Gregory, Arnold
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)


Crawshaw, Richard
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Dalyell, Tam
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Lipton, Marcus


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Loughlin, Charles


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)







Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
O'Malley, Brian
Silverman, Julius


MacColl, James
Oram, Albert E.
Skeffington, Arthur


Macdonald, A. H.
Orbach, Maurice
Slater, Joseph


McGuire, Michael
Orme, Stanley
Small, William


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Oswald, Thomas
Spriggs, Leslie


Mackintosh, John P.
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


McNamara, J. Kevin
Palmer, Arthur
Symonds, J. B.


MacPherson, Malcolm
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Taverne, Dick


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Park, Trevor
Tinn, James


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Tuck, Raphael


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Pentland, Norman
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Manuel, Archie
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Wallace, George


Mapp, Charles
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Watkins, David (Consett)


Marks, Kenneth
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Marquand, David
Price, William (Rugby)
Wellbeloved, James


Mayhew, Christopher
Probert, Arthur
White, Mrs. Eirene


Mendelson, John
Rankin, John
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Millan, Bruce
Rees, Merlyn
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Richard, Ivor
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Woof, Robert


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)



Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Ryan, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Neal, Harold
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Mr. John McCann and


Newens, Stan
Sheldon, Robert
Mr. Ioan L. Evans.


Ogden, Eric
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

New Clause

ANNUAL REPORT UPON CONTRIBUTIONS

The Minister shall annually lay before Parliament a Report and Accounts of Contributions made under sections 20 to 25 of this Act; and such Report and Accounts shall show the relationship between the total annual amount of the said contributions and the annual public investment in housing.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Brought tip, and read the First time.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The Clause proposes the making of an annual report of contributions made to local authorities so that they may carry out the provisions of the Bill. It proposes that the Minister shall annually lay before Parliament a report and accounts of those contributions, and it refers to Clauses 20 to 25. In those Clauses are the provisions about contributions from the Exchequer to local authorities.
In Clause 20, there is provision for contributions to the local authorities in respect of the grants which they make to private individuals—owner-occupiers and landlords—by way of either improvement grants or standard grants, and a proportion is to be refunded by the Exchequer. In the next two or three Clauses there is provision for contributions to the cost of improvements and conversions carried out by the housing authorities, whether they he improvement grants or standard grants.
In this case they are called improvement contributions and standard contributions because these are cases in which local authorities carry out work on their own houses. In Clause 25, there is provision for contributions in respect of dwellings provided or improved by housing associations by arrangement with local authorities.
Therefore, the types of contribution which we are talking about are threefold: contributions towards payments by local authorities to individual owners; contributions from the Exchequer to the local authorities for improvements of their own houses; and contributions to the advances or grants which local authorities make to housing associations. We are discussing fairly substantial sums of money paid each year first by the local authorities and then in respect of the contributions made to them by the Exchequer.
The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill as first presented to the House stated that all this money was to be set against general public expenditure on housing. Paragraph 4, under the heading "Financial effects of the Bill", reads:
It is estimated that public expenditure in consequence of this Bill, after allowing for the expenditure which will be incurred by local authorities in England and Wales in connection with improvement of older houses, and the charges on the Consolidated Fund, as well as the expenditure in paragraph 3 above"—


which deals with houses which are demolished, and so on—
will be approaching £40 million annually by 1972–73".
As I say, we are dealing with a fairly substantial sum.
The Memorandum goes on:
This expenditure will be continued within a total of public investment in housing at about the level it has now reached, as explained in the White Paper 'Old Houses into New Homes'.
Taking total public expenditure on new housing as it has been in the past, say, for this financial year or the last, not so much money will be spent in future on new houses because there will be deducted from the total expenditure the sum to be paid under the Bill on the improvement of old houses.
Since the Memorandum refers to the White Paper "Old Houses into new Homes", Cmnd. 3602, I turn to it to see how the policy is expressed. It is stated in the first paragraph of the introduction to the White Paper in these words:
The need for large new housebuilding programmes will remain for many years ahead".

Mr. Clegg: Hear, hear.

Mr. Page: My hon. Friend says "Hear, hear. I, too, say "Hear, hear".
I am sure that new house building programmes must remain large for a long time, despite Government forecasts that we shall have struck a balance or will have 1 million spare houses, or something or other, in 1973—something which we find incredible.
The paragraph continues:
But the balance of need between new housebuilding and improvement is now changing, so there must be a corresponding change in the emphasis of the local authority housing programmes The Government intend that within a total of public investment in housing at about the level it has now reached, a greater share should go to the improvement of older houses".
We must take the present expenditure and say that in future we shall not spend so much of it on new houses; we shall spend part of it on improving old houses and on the larger grants to be made under the Bill.
For the purpose of the Clause, it is not my intention to criticise that policy. I accept it as Government policy and the

Government's intention to carry it out in that way. Provided that the public knows what is happening and realises that the Bill will not increase expenditure on new houses plus improvements, but that they must all come within the same total expenditure, and if that policy must be accepted, Parliament should be kept continually informed.
This is a controversial policy. For example, the professional body of the architects has criticised it severely. It said that it may be found that instead of improving the stock of housing over the next few years we shall merely be preserving old houses for a short time which do not deserve to be preserved. That is one side of the picture. On the other side, with which, in the main, I agree, we must save our existing assets, and it is right that grants should be made from the local authorities and the Exchequer to try to prevent older property from falling into decay.
But, as I say, this is a controversial policy which Parliament should keep under review annually. I would hope that if a report were made by the Minister to Parliament the House would wish to debate it annually. That is why in the second part of the new Clause we set out a particular point. Not only should the Minister lay the report and accounts before Parliament annually, but they should
show the relationship between the total annual amount of the said contributions and the annual public investment in housing.
I am not sure how the Minister intends to keep this policy under control and to maintain the balance between new building and the improvement of old buildings. He says that by 1972 £40 million will be spent on improvements. This will be a percentage of the total expenditure on new building plus improvements. How will he keep the percentage stable if that is the policy? I am sure that from year to year any Minister would wish to change the policy in degree if not in its foundations. He will want to keep an eye on the percentage being spent on new houses and improvements. I am quite sure that the House will want to keep an eye on that and see how the policy works out and what changes there may be in it.
The Clause embodies a simple, short point. I merely ask for a report and indicate what it should include. Although


the point is a short and simple one, it arises out of a major point of policy in the Bill and one which the House should keep under its eye every year.

5.30 p.m.

Sir Douglas Glover: I am surprised that it has been necessary for the Opposition to move the new Clause. I cannot understand why the provisions of the new Clause were not in the Bill when it first came before the House. It is quite clear that this is the sort of thing that Parliament should be aware of, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has just said, there is bound to be controversy about how much money is spent on improvement and how much is spent on new housebuilding.
I presume that it is the cold, hard fact that because of the incompetent way the Government have run our affairs during the last five years we are today having to rehabilitate old property. In a more prosperous society, with our affairs properly run, old property would have been pulled down and replaced by new buildings. This must be true, because in a society that was rolling in wealth we would be putting people into new houses every five years, but the poorer the society is the more it has to make do and mend and make its old capital assets last longer. Therefore, the fact that the Government have spent a great deal of their time in devising systems of rehabilitating old property is an indictment of them in the failure of their new housing programme, because the one follows the other.
Clauses 20 to 25 of the Bill deal with contributions to individuals and local authorities and grants to housing associations, three different aspects of the housing problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby has said, the weight given to each of those aspects must be controversial—and I do not mean in a bad-tempered way. They must be open to argument. Some people may say that we ought to be doing more through housing associations, others may say that the whole weight should go on to local authorities, while others may say that the amount given to private individuals should be stopped. Therefore, it is all open to argument.
It seems to me incomprehensible that it has been necessary for the Opposition to ask the Government—I cannot conceive that they will oppose the Clause—to request that as a result of the Bill when it becomes law, the Minister should do what I would regard as his straightforward and bounden duty and lay before Parliament annually the report and accounts showing the contributions made under these five Clauses.
I would have thought that it was also necessary for Parliament to know how much was spent under these five Clauses and should know what proportion it represents of the total amount spent on the housing problem. If it showed that a greater percentage was being spent on rehabilitation and a smaller amount on new property, that would in some degree be a yardstick of the Government's failure to get the nation's economy on a satisfactory basis to get these two items in balance.
It would certainly be true for any party in the House of Commons—and we must remember not only the great Liberal Party, but we must remember that there are the independents of nationalist persuasion who, perhaps, want to take all these affairs out of the hands of this Chamber in any event; it is certainly necessary that any individual Member who is interested in this problem should know that there is a duty upon the Government to present annual accounts showing the contributions and the annual public investment in housing.

Mr. Simon Mahon: The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), who is an old Parliamentarian, is putting the case for getting further information from the Government. Would he not get that information by the simple process of asking an Oral or a Written Question?

Sir D. Glover: I am horrified that the hon. Member, with his long experience of local government, should say that we can get this information by asking an Oral or Written Question. That is not the point. The point is that the Minister should have a responsibility, not to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon), who is so assiduous in all his work on behalf of his constituents and


who, I am sure, would ask a Question, but to the whole House, to those hon. Members who are not as assiduous as the hon. Member but who may equally need this information to see how the Government of the day are dealing with our affairs.
Before the hon. Member takes umbrage at the new Clause, may I point out to him that it is much more likely that he or his successor will be demanding that a new Clause like this should be written into the legislation, because within a very short time it will be my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby and his colleagues who will have to provide what we are asking for in the new Clause.
It would be incomprehensible to me that any hon. Members on the benches opposite should criticise the new Clause. I am sure that it will be only a matter of form for the Minister to rise in his place and say that he has much pleasure in accepting it and thanking the Opposition for their co-operation and splendid foresight, which obviously shows that they are the potential Government.

Mr. Maddan: I hesitate to intervene in a debate which seems to be exclusive to representatives of Lancashire constituencies, important part of the country though that may be. I support the new Clause, but I want to dissent from an argument which has been used by my hon. Friends.
First, however, I should like to make a point which has not been made. Clearly, the Minister will have all the information which, it is suggested in the new Clause, should be laid before Parliament. Therefore, we are not asking him to undertake any long-winded research or compilation of statistics as an additional burden. He must have this information. What we are asking, therefore, is that he should lay it before Parliament so that we all have it.
The point on which I wish to dissent from my hon. Friends, and particularly, perhaps, my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), is that the more money that is spent under the six Clauses—not five Clauses, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) suggested; nought counts as one when doing inclusive counting, so it is six Clauses and not five—

Sir D. Glover: In this Parliament all five principles always finish up as six.

Mr. Maddan: I am glad to have given my hon. Friend the opportunity to make that observation.
The point that I am making, in contradistinction to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, is that the more money relative to the total public housing investment which is shown as being necessary under the provisions of these six Clauses the more pleased I shall be. My hon. Friend seemed to think that it would be worse. I know that I cannot go far within the rules of order in developing this point, but I should not like it to be thought that the support of the new Clause rests upon a desire to continue to underpin and augment the amount of public expenditure on council-house building as against other expenditure.
The Bill emphasises the importance of getting older properties into a decent state. I disagree with the architects who thought that this might be pouring good money after bad and that it would be better to spend the money on building new boxes. Architects over-estimate the durability of their work in comparison with that of their predecessors. The money spent under the Bill will be extremely well spent. I am not asking the Government to lay before Parliament figures which will enable me to chop off their heads. The bigger the figures, the better I shall be pleased, and the more I shall congratulate them.

Mr. Clegg: My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) was certain that the Minister would accept the new Clause, but, on looking into my crystal ball, I have strong doubts of that. We discussed in Committee a similar proposal, and the reply we received from the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, who spoke with his usual Gallic fluency—I am sorry that he is not here today—was that we could look at the Quarterly Housing Statistics for Great Britain. It may be that some relevant information would be contained in the Quarterly Housing Statistics for Great Britain, but we are seeking parliamentary participation. We want Parliament by a process of debate to examine the position year by year to see how things are going.
If at Business Question Time one asked the Leader of the House for time to debate the Quarterly Housing Statistics,


he would reply, as usual, "Not next week". If it were obligatory for a report to be presented to Parliament, there would be much more chance of getting a debate on the subject. There will be progress, and, to use a trendy and bogus word, this is one way in which Parliament can "participate".

Mr. Hawkins: I rise to support the new Clause but, having asked Questions on this subject to which I have received no reply because it was said that statistics were not available, I must disagree with the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon). I asked how many council houses were still to be improved, to which I received the answer, "About 500,000". I asked how many were still to be improved in the county of Norfolk, to which I received the answer that it was not known.
If figures were laid before the House—and presumably numbers could be given as well as the total expenditure—all hon. Members would know how the scheme was going in their constituencies, or at least in their counties.

Mr Eric Lubbock: In the nature of things, the hon. Member cannot know how many grants remain to be approved until applications are submitted. The total number of grants approved in any one year is contained in the annual report of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, where it is stated that in 1965 the total number of grants approved in England was 107,225.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Hawkins: I know how (many houses were improved last year or the year before, but I do not know how many remain to be improved, and that is another figure which could be contained in the report to Parliament. The information should be split between private and council housing, so that we know how much money is spent on each. We should be told how the scheme is going and how much money is available for new houses. I understand that the total sum previously allocated to new houses will now be split between new houses and improvements. I had hoped that the sum previously spent on new houses plus the sum previously spent on improvements would be divided beween new houses and improvements. If this is not so, the total

sum of money spent on housing will be less than it has been in the past.
The information which is asked for in the new Clause would be most valuable to all hon. Members, to all local authorities and to the Government, and it would be possible for a debate on this subject to be held with hon. Members in possession of the figures.

Mr. Rossi: I support the new Clause. We are told in the Financial Memorandum which is printed in the forefront of the Bill what will be the likely financial effects of the Bill. It is stated on page xii of the Memorandum that certain charges of the Consolidated Fund under a number of sub-headings will arise in consequence of the Bill There will be increased contributions to local authorities towards the cost of improvement, standard and special grants which they make to private owners. There will be increased contributions to housing authorities towards the cost of improvements and conversions carried out by or under arrangements with them. There will be contributions to local authorities towards approved expenditure incurred in a general improvement area. There will be an increase of rate support grant resulting from expenditure incurred under the Bill by local authorities, and there will be the payment of additional expenses of Ministers relating to the rent officer service. This will all be additional expenditure falling upon the public purse for housing purposes, purposes which we welcome.
The Memorandum then states that further public expenditure will arise, in particular in respect of higher payment to be made by local authorities for unfit houses purchased or demolished, and for lending by local authorities to owner-occupiers on mortgage for the repair and improvement of their houses. Again, these are all laudable objectives which we on this side of the House fully support.
The sum total of these heads of additional expenditure, we are told in paragraph 4 of the Financial Memorandum, will be £40 million annually by 1972–73, but here comes the rub. The concluding sentence is:
This expenditure will be contained within a total of public investment in housing at about the level it has now reached …


If £40 million is to be taken out of the present budget for these purposes, what in the way of housing will suffer? We have not been told.
In Committee we discussed on Clause 74 the question of loans to owner-occupiers on mortgage for the repair and improvement of their houses. When we asked where the £40 million was to come from and what segment of the housing programme would suffer, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was very coy and said that he would not be drawn into a Budget debate. For technical reasons he had the protection of the Chair, and we were unable to pursue that line of inquiry. But the new Clause now puts the matter at large, and I should like to take the opportunity again to press the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on the matter of expenditure. I hope that he will not dodge the issue, but will give the House a straight and frank answer.
What disturbs me is that we are to see a cut-back in local authority building of houses and flats. That must be the logical outcome if our budget is to remain the same but £40 million is to be diverted for this purpose.

Mr. Lubbock: Surely the important question is how many houses will be saved through the improvement grants provided by the Bill which otherwise would have been demolished and have to have been replaced by new houses built by local authorities? The new Clause tabled by the Opposition will not help the Government of the day to answer that question.

Mr. Rossi: That is a question for the Minister. As I understand it, the practice of the local authorities is only to demolish houses which have less than 15 years of life left. The expenditure in relation to the Bill will be on houses with more than 15 years life in them, otherwise the Bill becomes a nonsense. There is not much to be gained by pursuing that particular line of inquiry.
I continue to press for an answer as to what part of our housing programme will suffer because this £40 million will be taken out of the current budget. We have had no answer to that question and the country deserves an answer.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: If the hon. Member is putting questions

to the Government a question might well be put to him. How many Conservative local authorities are answering this question by refusing to build local authority houses?

Mr. Rossi: The Government because of their economic policy have placed every possible obstacle in the way of local authorities building more. One way to help the local authorities is to make a start by lowering the interest rates. We shall quickly get out of order if we now enter into a general housing debate. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) must not be too provocative or he may get some answers he does not want. I can see that Mr. Deputy Speaker is beginning to get a little restless with this kind of discussion.
If I may return to the new Clause, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) interjected a moment ago to say that these figures will come out in the annual report of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I may be wrong, but I believe that there is no annual report by the Ministry. There was at one time such a document, but the report published quite recently covered the two years 1967 and 1968. When a document covering the year 1969 will appear is anybody's guess.
We seek to make it quite clear in the new Clause that, if the House is to keep an eye on our housing programme, these figures should be published regularly and annually. This is what we demand, particularly in view of the evasion on this particular issue, particularly in Committee.

Mr. Simon Mahon: The Opposition have said that this is a laudable Bill. They have commended the provisions relating to local authority building, private building associations, the private owner and other aspects of housing. In one sense I almost feel like asking my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench to concede this new Clause. If the information which the Opposition seek was readily available to the people of this country, the first thing that it would prove is the failure of the previous Administration to do half as much as we are doing to solve this problem.
The Opposition have supported the major Clauses and have then, as is their right, become churlish about one or two


of the details. If the new Clause were accepted, I am sure that it would show the benefits which we are giving to various sections of society in every branch of housing, benefits which have not been given previously.
The Opposition keep on asking for all sorts of information. Such information must be correlated. The Opposition are the same people who, at both national and local level, are always asking for reductions in clerical staff and in the Civil Service. Yet this rather mischievous new Clause would tend to increase the number of people required.
The new Clause would involve the Government in a time-wasting exercise. It is not an important matter, although I have listened to one after another hon. Member opposite talking as though it were. Surely the most important aspect of the Bill is that everyone admits that it is excellent in every way. In spite of what has been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite, the new Clause would add to it nothing at all.

Mr. MacColl: The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) was kind enough to say that in my disposition I have a certain coyness. This no doubt has led to my remaining in an unmarried state for so long. I have no desire to get drawn into a Budget debate at this stage of the Housing Bill since the House is unanimous in being desperately anxious to get the Bill through quickly.
I accept what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon), that perhaps there would have been a case for accepting a provision of this kind if we had not been very aware of the importance of improving the amount and the quality of the statistics which we lay before the House on the activities of the Ministry.
I am glad to say that we are restarting, after its having been abandoned, an annual report from the Ministry and hope in future to have an annual volume. We have also very much improved upon the preparation of the statistics. We have abolished the old Appendix C and now have a comprehensive statement of the housing figures.
That is the background to the problem. If we needed to provide more figures to enable the House and the general public to see what is happening, I am

certain we would provide them. The Government have not been indifferent to the importance of providing adequate figures, and we have recently produced a Green Paper reviewing the methods for providing information and providing a guide as to how to reach decisions on public expenditure.
6.0 p.m.
A White Paper is to be published at the end of each year giving the appropriate information to Parliament. That is the new position.
The current position is that in the normal working of Parliament, estimates of Government contributions under the detailed headings of private owner and local authority discretionary and standard grants are already presented each year to Parliament and published in Class VI of the Civil Estimates. The expenditure under these heads is later presented and published in the Civil Appropriation Account. This is the general picture. We can supply in the fullest detail the global figures on what is happening.
Hon. Members from time to time express interest in problems in their own areas or in a more general part of the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle said, quite rightly, that if it is necessary to get more intensive information about an area it can be obtained through Parliamentary Questions.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) said that he was unable to get the detailed information for which he asked. It may have been that it was of a speculative nature about the condition of property in a rather more general way.

Mr. Hawkins: The question that I asked, both in 1966 and this year, was: how many council houses still remain to be improved with bathrooms and lavatories? That information apparently is not available. It seemed to me that it was necessary to know the answer to that question.

Mr. MacColl: The nature of an improvement, if it is a discretionary improvement, is difficult to measure in advance. Information is available about the number of houses without baths and essential amenities, and it is published


frequently. We do not want to hide anything. We are alive to the problems. We are providing pretty well all the information that could be provided to enable a proper view to be taken of our policy. I do not wish to be provoked into discussing the merits of our policy. Therefore, I will not make any of the obvious debating replies.

Mr. Peter Walker: I am surprised that the Minister did not take up the plea by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) to provide this information, which would seemingly provide such good evidence of the success of the Government in these spheres. If this was the case, I am sure that the Minister would have done so with speed, alacrity and enthusiasm. After all, there are so few spheres where the Government can make a good case that I should think that the Minister would make every endeavour to publish this information in full.
Being a shrewd politician, both locally and nationally, there must be a query in the mind of the hon. Member for Bootle whether there is some other reason. The Minister gave no reason for not laying this information before Parliament. He just argued that there were various facts and figures available and annual statistics and White Papers here and there. But he gave no reason for resisting the new Clause. I will suggest the reason. The Government do not want it to be made too clear that any money they spend here will not be additional money to improve housing but will be taken from what would have been spent on new housing.
This is made clear in paragraph 4 of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. This has already been quoted, but I wish to repeat it, because the wording is very significant. It states:
It is estimated that public expenditure in consequence of this Bill, after allowing for the expenditure which will be incurred by local authorities in England and Wales in connection with improvement of older houses, and the charges on the Consolidated Fund, as well as the expenditure in paragraph 3 above, will be approaching £40 million annually by 1972–73. This expenditure will be contained within a total of public investment in housing at about the level it has now reached, as explained in the White Paper 'Old Houses into New Homes'.
The Government are saying that this £40 million will be contained within what

has already been promised in a previous White Paper and is already the present level of spending on housing. We want it made clear where the reduction is taking place, because there will be a reduction in expenditure by the Government on housing.
This is why Mr. Des Wilson, speaking on behalf of Shelter only a few days ago, expressed his dismay at the fact that in total the Bill would have the happy effects hoped for because there was to be a reduction in the total expenditure on housing. This Memorandum shows that clearly.
The information that we are asking for is very limited. We are merely asking for accounts to be laid before Parliament once a year showing the relationship between the various forms of expenditure by the Government on housing. I should think that the Government would be interested in this. Whatever their optimism, there is the possibility of a change of Government. I think that any future Opposition—which I believe the present Government is destined to be in the near future—would like this kind of information clearly laid before Parliament. We, as the present Opposition, obviously want it to be laid before Parliament, because it is useful information to debate.
There is no bureaucracy involved. Very little work is involved. The statistics must be available. We say that the Government should have an obligation to say to the country once a year, "We will spend less on that sector of housing, but we will spend more on this, or, if things become really hard, we will spend less on all sectors of housing". These figures should be clearly put before the country once a year.
As part of his defence, the Minister said—

Mr. Lubbock: Would the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) care to comment on what the Minister said about the Civil Estimates, Class VI, where all these figures are defined:
Conversions and improvements of housing accommodation … (a) by local authorities and other bodies … (b) by private persons … (2) Standard improvements of housing accommodation …".
I will not read it all. But these amounts are itemised and the figure for the previous financial year is given. Does not


the hon. Gentleman think this information is sufficient for his purpose?

Mr. Walker: I cannot believe that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), who is likely to remain in Opposition for the rest of his Parliamentary life, does not want this information in this form.

Mr. Lubbock: rose—

Mr. Walker: I am willing to concede that the hon. Gentleman can read. But, as far as—

Mr. Lubbock: Apparently the hon. Member for Worcester cannot.

Mr. Walker: All I am saying is that as part of the Bill, where there is specific investing out of the total fund, provision should be made that once a year these figures by themselves, not in the total Civil Estimates, should be published and laid before Parliament so that they can be clearly seen and debated.
I want to concentrate attention on housing. I do not want this as something which can be delved out of the Civil Estimates once a year when they are

being discussed in total. I want Governments of any complexion to lay these figures before Parliament. I am surprised at the refusal to do so.

I am sure that all those passionately interested in housing, such as movements like Shelter, would like this kind of information clearly exposed to Parliamentary debate once a year. They, too, will regret the Government's reluctance to indicate clearly the manner in which they will budget future housing policy. The only conclusion that can be drawn from their decision is that they are hoping that people will consider that they have decided to spend an additional £40 million on housing without recognising that this sum is coming from the existing housing programme.

Because they are hoping to conceal that, they are reluctant about the new Clause. Therefore, I urge my hon. Friends to divide the House in favour of the new Clause.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second Time:—

The House divided: Ayes 129, Noes 185.

Division No. 270.]
AYES
[6.10 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gibson-Watt, David
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Astor, John
Goodhart, Philip
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Gower, Raymond
Monro, Hector


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Grant, Anthony
Montgomery, Fergus


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Grieve, Percy
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Bell, Ronald
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Biffen, John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Black, Sir Cyril
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Hastings, Stephen
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hawkins, Paul
Nott, John


Braine, Bernard
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Onslow, Cranley


Brewis, John
Heseltine, Michael
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Higgins, Terence L.
Percival, Ian



Hill, J. E. B.



Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Holland, Philip
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Hordern, Peter
Pink, R. Bonner


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hunt, John
Pounder, Rafton


Burden, F. A.
Hutchison, Michael dark
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Iremonger, T. L.
Prior, J. M. L.


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pym, Francis


Carlisle, Mark
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Channon, H. P. G.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Clark, Henry
Jopling, Michael
Russell, Sir Ronald


Clegg, Walter
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Cooke, Robert
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Silvester, Frederick


Corfield, F. V.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Costain, A. P.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Speed, Keith


Crouch, David
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Stainton, Keith


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Currie, G. B. H.
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
McMaster, Stanley
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
McNair-Wilson, Michael (W'stow, E.)
Temple, John M.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maddan, Martin
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Fisher, Nigel
Maginnis, John E.
Tilney, John


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Fortescue, Tim
Maude, Angus
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Foster, Sir John
Mawby, Ray
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John




Waddington, David
Wiggin, A. W.
Younger, Hn. George


Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)



Ward, Dame Irene
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wells, John (Maidstone)
Wright, Esmond
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Wylie, N. R.
Mr. Reginald Eyre.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Gregory, Arnold
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Anderson, Donald
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Neal, Harold


Archer, Peter
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Newens, Stan


Armstrong, Ernest
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Norwood, Christopher


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Ogden, Eric


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hannan, William
O'Malley, Brian


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Harper, Joseph
Oram, Albert E.


Bagier, Gordon, A. T.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orbach, Maurice


Barnett, Joel
Haseldine, Norman
Orme, Stanley


Bidwell, Sydney
Hazell, Bert
Oswald, Thomas


Binns, John
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Bishop, E. S.
Hooley, Frank
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Blackburn, F.
Hooson, Emlyn
Palmer, Arthur


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Horner, John
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Park, Trevor


Booth, Albert
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Boyden, James
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Bradley, Tom
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pentland, Norman


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hynd, John
Perry, Georga H. (Nottingham, S.)


Brooks, Edwin
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Janner, Sir Barnett
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Jegsr, George (Goole)
Price, William (Rugby)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Probert, Arthur


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)



Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Rankin, John


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Judd, Frank
Rees, Merlyn


Concannon, J. D.
Kelley, Richard
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kenyon, Clifford
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Crawshaw, Richard
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Lawson, George
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Dalyell, Tam
Leadbitter, Ted
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Ryan, John


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lee, John (Reading)
Sheldon, Robert


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Silverman, Julius


Delargy, Hugh
Lipton, Marcus
Skeffington, Arthur


Dell, Edmund
Lubbock, Eric
Slater, Joseph


Dempsey, James
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Spriggs, Leslie


Dewar, Donald
Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
MacColl, James
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Dickens, James
Macdonald, A. H.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Dobson, Ray
McGuire, Michael
Symonds, J. B.


Doig, Peter
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Taverne, Dick


Dunn, James A.
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Tinn, James


Dunnett, Jack
Mackintosh, John P.
Tuck, Raphael


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Ellis, John
MacPherson, Malcolm
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


English, Michael
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ensor, David
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Wallace, George


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Fernyhough, E.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Manuel, Archie
Wellbeloved, James


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mapp, Charles
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Marks, Kenneth
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Ford, Ben
Marquand, David
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Forrester, John
Mayhew, Christopher
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Freeson, Reginald
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Woof, Robert


Gardner, Tony
Mendelson, John



Garrett, W. E.
Millan, Bruce
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ginsburg, David
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Mr. Ernest G. Perry and


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Dr. M. S. Miller.


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

New Clause 12

RENT OFFICERS ADVISORY DUTIES RELATING TO GRANTS

Rent officers, holding appointments as such by virtue of Part IV of the Rent Act 1968, shall have the duty of giving advice concerning grants under Part I of this Act to persons

(upon reasonable request therefor) who are applicants or prospective applicants for grants or who are builders or developers interested in works for which grants may be made; and such Rent Officers shall be responsible for maintaining reasonable liaison between the local authority, on the one hand, and the owners and occupiers of property which is being or is capable of being improved and the


builders and developers who are or may be interested therein, on the other hand.—[Mr. Clegg.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Clegg: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
On the centre pages of the Evening News yesterday I found a whole page of what I took at first to be a Labour Party manifesto, with a collection of portraits. On further inspection, however, I found that the photographs were of those fine people, the rent officers. The words of the advertisement were very appropriate:
Call in for a friendly chat. You do not need an appointment. We will make sure your rent is fair".
That last statement will probably make a cold shiver run up and down the spine of the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun.)
I have a great respect for rent officers, who have had remarkable success. The system has worked much better than I thought it would. The new Clause continues a line of thought which we expressed in Committee, which arose because the building industry and applicants had difficulty in getting technical guidance and information about their entitlement to grants from certain local authorities. We suggested that an officer should be appointed to administer grants, but we were told that it was not necessary to put that in the Bill, since the Clause only said that they "may" appoint, which would leave the authorities free.
This new Clause is a different matter. It would lay the duty on someone appointed not by the local authority and who would be outside the authority's scope. Under the Bill, rent officers will have to study its effects and decide on the rents to be charged when the work has been done. They are therefore bound to build up a considerable fund of experience. We feel that they could assist not only the applicants but builders or developers interested in works for which grants may be given. We see their capacity rather as advisory officers who can maintain a liaison between local authorities making and administering the grants and the people on the receiving end.
This is the sort of duty with which the Government have some sympathy. We have occasionally discussed ways and

means of bringing to people's notice the way in which they can get grants. One difficulty in the past has been that schemes for grants have not worked as well as they should, because of a lack of knowledge of entitlements. If the rent officers were brought in, that would no longer apply. From the beginning, one could know from him what sort of rent was likely and what sort of help was available under the standard grants and the discretionary grants.
The new Clause would set a pattern which would make administration of these grants much easier and more satisfactory and would undoubtedly provide a line service for the public.

Mr. Frank Allaun: I have no doubt that this proposal would be a great advantage for property owners. The Bill and the Amendments, particularly those which we are now discussing, are of great value to property owners, but what service will be supplied for the tenants? The tenant will suffer from this—

Mr. Clegg: Could the hon. Gentleman explain why? Would not the tenant get the benefit of the landlord having advice which would improve his property?

Mr. Allaun: Not at all. The landlord will ask the rent officer what rent he could charge if he put in a bathroom, and if the rent officer said that he could probably get treble the landlord would go ahead and use his compulsory powers and the tenant would suffer. I hope that the Minister will remember that this Bill is biased against the tenant.

Sir D. Glover: I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) made a powerful case for the new Clause, and I was surprised at the remarks of the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun). What often surprises me about our procedures is that we go through all the arrangements of making assistance available for various people and then have a genius for keeping it under the carpet, so that no one knows which arrangements are available—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman heard the beginning of the debate. We have 40 debates before us. Hon. Members should speak about the new Clause at the moment.

Sir D. Glover: I thought that I was doing so, Mr. Speaker. I was referring to the advisory duties of the rent officers. When certain things are available, someone should be able to give advice. In a very able speech, my hon. Friend suggested that the rent officer should give the advice. In that respect, the new Clause would help.
What surprises me about the hon. Member for Salford, East is that, even though this may involve an increase in rent, it seems anti-social to condemn someone to live in a property, perhaps at a low rent, which, with an improvement grant for a bathroom, could become a reasonable home in which the hon. Gentleman would like his constituents to live.
The new Clause is only asking that the rent officers shall have advisory duties relating to grants, which means that many people, perhaps with one or two units and with very little skilled knowledge of these matters, could ask advice about making the accommodation more satisfactory for the tenants—and, admittedly, for themselves, the landlords. I assume that, having made these improvements, they would be able to increase the rents, but the new Clause would be very valuable, particularly to a small landlord and to the tenants whose accommodation would be improved. I hope that the Minister will think this helpful to the working of the various Acts dealing with grants and modernisation, and that it will help this system to work more efficiently.

Mr. Maddan: I had not intended to speak until the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) gave his reason for opposing the new Clause. It was so contrary to the whole purpose of the Bill that I must make one point which has not been stressed so far. The only validity that his objection could have is if the whole basis of the Bill were false and against the interests of tenants. Since the Minister brought it forward in good faith, he will not accept that argument, at least. In those circumstances, I hope that he will accept the new Clause, or at least the spirit of it, since it is designed to help make the Bill work as well as possible.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Allason: I remind the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun)

that the object of the Bill is to improve houses. It follows, since houses are lived in by people, that we want to benefit not the houses but the people. People will not suffer if their houses are improved. The trouble is that the hon. Gentleman has a private quarrel with his right hon. Friend about whether a system of fair rents should be introduced. He does not want such a system, but it does not entitle him to argue that tenants will suffer if their houses are improved; and the new Clause is merely designed to see that houses are improved in the right way.
Hon. Members will be aware of the difficulties that are encountered when owners are trying to be persuaded to improve their property. They are often frightened off because of the complicated procedures that are involved. We gather that the Minister is to produce yet another pamphlet explaining the new incentives and how they will work. The small owner is always at a disadvantage.
It is for these reasons that we need in the market-place, so to speak, somebody who will be aware of new bright ideas and how to explain them to small owners, who normally do not read the details of the latest developments in the technical journals. We need somebody to do this job who is not just in touch with the latest ideas but knows his locality and the houses that most need improving.

Mr. Simon Mahon: The new Clause deals primarily with rent officers. Does the hon. Gentleman consider that, in the whole orbit of local and national government, rent officers are the best qualified people to give advice of this kind?

Mr. Allason: Somebody is needed to do this work. It is an attractive idea to have somebody who is aware of local conditions but who, not being a local official, is neutral. We have ready to hand rent officers, who are the friends of all concerned. They are used to settling rent problems and are, therefore, familiar with the problems of both landlords and tenants. They are experienced in dealing with the matters with which we are concerned.
Hon. Members voiced a certain amount of suspicion when rent officers were established. By now, however, we know them to be extremely useful, helpful and knowledgeable people. I appreciate that this additional work would mean that their numbers would have to be increased.


However, we would not need highly qualified people to explain these procedures, so that it should not prove difficult to recruit more rent officers. We need people to do this job because they are interested and passionately devoted to the creation of good housing. The rent officer fills the bill.
In Committee we discussed the number of rent officers who might be needed, not just for this proposal but as a result of the Bill as a whole. It would, therefore, be ridiculous for the Government to suggest that the new Clause is impracticable because more rent officers would have to be recruited. If Parliament wills that rent officers must do this job, the Executive cannot stand in the way, and more rent officers will have to be found.

Mr. Hawkins: I take issue with the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) who, I know, is passionately devoted to the provision of better housing. However, on all occasions such as this his remarks seem to indicate that he would rather have tenants living in squalor than have their houses improved. The Bill is concerned with improving houses and getting the whole stock of houses up to a better standard.
The Labour Party has been at pains to point out that landlords do not improve their houses. As the Bill will, we hope, result in houses being improved, it must be agreed that somebody is needed locally to help to see that the job is done. Owner-occupiers, and particularly the elderly, living in, for example, small terraced houses, need assistance and friendly advice from somebody who specialises in these matters. They need somebody to turn to who will explain the best way for the improvements to be made and how to fill in the necessary forms.
The answer to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) is that we endeavoured in Committee to secure the appointment of people on local authority staffs to do this work. That proposition was rejected. If the hon. Gentleman has an alternative suggestion, I would be pleased to hear it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. With the best will in the world, the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) cannot make any such suggestion now. It is a question of discussing what the new Clause suggests.

Mr. Hawkins: I have had a considerable amount to do with grants and improvements of this kind. I have found that even trained professional people are sometimes at a loss because there is not one person in a local authority dealing specifically with matters of this kind. The rent officer has intimate knowledge of his area and could perform this task usefully.
I rather disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) that a great increase would be required in the number of rent officers. I believe that the existing stock of rent officers could do this work, in addition to their present tasks.

Mr. Lubbock: Rent officers are capable of performing duties other than those suggested in the new Clause. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be aware of what I have in mind, for it would be improper for me to develop that theme on this occasion.
Many rent officers are under-loaded at present and would have no difficulty if the duties proposed in the new Clause were assigned to them. I wonder, however, if Conservative hon. Members have thought whether rent officers would be the right people to do this job. I do not believe that they would be, and I say that declaring an interest as a director of a small building company.
Building firms which specialise in conversions and improvements are the most capable people to advise clients on how this would should be undertaken, not only technically but from the point of view of filling in the necessary forms, putting in applications to local authorities and going through all the administrative procedures that are involved. Building companies do this work as a matter of course. Indeed, it is somewhat of an insult to suggest in the new Clause that among those to be advised on these matters by rent officers are builders and developers. Are Conservative hon. Members suggesting that builders and developers know less than rent officers about how to get in touch with local authorities and of the latest technical improvements about which one can read in the trade journals?

Mr. Clegg: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that approaches have been made by the building industry to the effect that difficulties have been experienced in


this matter and that some firms have been discouraged from undertaking this work because of the problems that stand in their way?

Mr. Lubbock: That only means that there must be a lot of incompetent builders who may soon find themselves out of business, with the result that my firm will have more. [Interruption.] The building industry is varied in the capabilities of the firms which comprise it. One is frequently reading about building firms going bankrupt. I do not underestimate the difficulties that the building industry faces. However, the procedures which we are discussing are not as complicated as some hon. Members may think for firms which specialise in this work and which do not try to cover the whole spectrum of new work for local authorities and private clients and also do conversions and improvements for both types of client.
Companies which specialise in conversions and improvements frequently employ experts to oversee the work. I do not believe that the difficulties are nearly as serious as the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) has made out today or has maintained in correspondence concerning the building industry. Indeed, it is a slur on the industry to suggest that it needs the advice of rent officers, who have no expertise in this sphere and who are concerned with totally different matters following the passage of the 1965 Act.
To divert the attention of rent officers away from their present activities and into technical questions connected with improving property would be wrong. It would mean their undertaking additional training, their energies would be absorbed in this task and they would be prevented from branching out into new fields in which I hope the Minister will later in the debate be persuaded they should become involved.
For these reasons the new Clause is bad. I am satisfied that once the building industry has full knowledge of the contents of the Bill it will get down to the job we want it to tackle efficiently with the result that many more houses, and particularly older ones, will be brought up to date.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Costain: Like the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), I must declare my interest in that I, too, am a director of a small building company.
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman because the building industry, as well as others, needs somebody to advise on these matters. Perhaps the hon. Member for Orpington has not spent as long in the practical side of the industry as I have. The Government are expecting to open a new phase of development and spend £40 million to improve property. It must be agreed that there are not sufficient people in the building industry with the knowledge that rent officers may be able to pass on to those concerned.

Mr. Lubbock: Why not?

Mr. Costain: We must have a co-ordinated effort. Far be it from me to recommend the appointment of more civil servants. I am not doing that. The rent officer, because of his present duties, is probably best able to judge what accommodation in his area needs improving. We need somebody to advise property owners and developers because, as usual, the hon. Member for Orpington has got his facts wrong. The majority of houses are owned not by builders but by private individuals.

Mr. Lubbock: I wish the hon. Gentleman would not be stupid. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]

Mr. Costain: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to interrupt. I hope that he will do so in the correct Parliamentary manner and not from a sedentary position.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are on Report, which is somewhat more formal than when we are in Committee.

Mr. Costain: I welcome your protection in this matter, Mr. Speaker.
A number of small owners of rented property are not experienced. When a new grant of this sort is brought out by any Government there is immediately a crop of semi-experts who try to set up in business to advise these somewhat innocent people. These people are attracted because they think that if they take that advice they might get the grant.


The rent officer knows the type of accommodation which lets and he knows what is lacking in amenities. He is the perfect person to do this job. At present many rent officers are not fully occupied. The Government should adopt this sensible new Clause.

Mr. MacColl: The trouble about members of the Opposition is that they are in a very aggressive and dictatorial mood at the moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The general idea that the rent officer should interest himself in improvements and helping people who go to see him is common ground, but why have this pretentious Clause putting a statutory duty on him? It says not that he "may" but that he "shall" have the duty of giving advice.

Mr. Clegg: The last time I proposed putting the word "may" in the Minister said that there was no need then to have the Clause in the Bill.

Mr. MacColl: I think that is so, but if the duty is to be put on the rent officer to maintain a reasonable liaison, I wonder whether hon. Members who have some experience with local government have considered how this would work with a local authority—a statutory body responsible for administering the grant system, elected democratically and conscious of its rights—agreeing to have a rent officer, not in a friendly, helpful, co-operative relationship, but with a statutory duty to liaise between the authority and its constituents.
Is the rent officer, like the Citizens Advice Bureau, to have available information about grants and be able to tell people where to go to get them, giving them the extension number in the town hall where they can get the information? Many conscientious rent officers would do that without thinking they were departing from their normal work. Public health inspectors have a technical knowledge and standing as local authority officers. They could do this kind of work, but I do not think it would be wise to place a statutory duty on them to do it.
There is a special difficulty about the rent officer. He is appointed by the clerk of the local authority, but he is not the servant of the clerk and is not answerable to him for decisions he makes. Sometimes this gives rise to an unwarrantable

suspicion that the rent officer is the stooge of the local council. It is very important for a rent officer with any sense and wisdom to be careful to make clear that he is in no way a servant of the local authority but is independent and giving his own decisions which can be challenged only in the traditional way by assessment by a local committee. I am sure that rent officers would like to give information and join in partnership with other bodies in trying to improve property, but they should not have this laid on them as a statutory duty.

Mr. Graham Page: We cannot be other than dissatisfied with the answer the Parliamentary Secretary has given. On the last point he made I rather doubt whether if a rent officer spends his time advising on these sort of matters he is still within the duties of his appointment. I think it doubtful whether he would be right without some authority given by statute to give that sort of advice. He is appointed to do a particular duty. He is a central Government servant under the town clerk, but not under the local authority.
I assure the Parliamentary Secretary that we are not in any way in an aggressive or dictatorial mood. If it would please him to have the word "may" instead of "shall" in the new Clause we should be quite happy to make that change. Local authorities should realise that there should be some officer specifically appointed with the power to liaise with all concerned with applying for grants, or wishing to consider whether they can apply or what is to happen to the tenant when the landlord applies. It has been accepted for years that grants have not been taken up as we would wish them to be taken up. This is what the Bill is all about. Anything we can do to encourage people to understand grants and be ready to take them up should be done.
The criticism made by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) of the inclusion in the Clause of builders and developers is not justified. There are many who would welcome liaison between themselves and owners or occupiers of property. Although many building companies understand this job perfectly well and would advise people on it, others need assistance, not in their technical work, but in their relations with those who want to carry out repairs to their properties.
Individual owners need help in understanding what is meant by the grants and how they can use them. They need to know what their entitlements are and how families in houses where grants are to be made and improvements undertaken have to arrange their own affairs. The Parliamentary Secretary, in his paradise of bachelordom, does not understand what is meant by families re-arranging their lives. I know a little better as I heard during the last debate that I have become a grandfather for the first time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I know about the re-arranging of families and the difficulties faced when they have to move from a room because a bathroom is to be put in.
The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) said that this proposal would not help tenants; but we think it would. If a tenant can go to a rent officer and say, "The landlord wants to put a bathroom in my sitting-room. What can I do about it?", the rent officer can tell him how he can raise objections and get the landlord to give him other accommodation. How would an ordinary tenant know about that unless there were someone to whom he could apply? The rent officer is the right person to do this.

In Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary said:
If a rent officer is good at his job, and all London rent officers are outstanding, he becomes a sort of Citizens' Advice Bureau because he becomes a person to whom M.P.'s, landlords, tenants and others go to to get advice about the levels of rent.
A rent officer who can say, 'I know from my experience that that is too high a rent and you would be much wiser to agree a lower rent' is doing a tremendously valuable job. Such advice does not appear in the figures as a case dealt with, a decision taken, but it is part of his preventive work."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 20th March, 1969; col. 381.]

If that sort of action could be brought to bear on liaison between local authorities and individuals wanting to carry out improvements and between tenants and builders capable of doing the work, it would serve a very good purpose. It will not happen unless we put something definite in the Bill to oblige local authorities to think of this as a positive job and not merely as, "Perhaps we might appoint someone next year to do this". We should make it an obligation on them. Then I think the work will be done.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 127, Noes 183.

Division No. 271.]
AYES
[6.55 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Eiliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Elliott, R. W. (N 'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Awdry, Daniel
Fortescue, Tim
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Foster, Sir John
MacArthur, Ian


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gibson-Watt, David
McMaster, Stanley


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Glover, Sir Douglas
McNair-Wilson, M. (Walthamstow, E.)


Bell, Ronald
Gower, Raymond
Maddan, Martin


Biffen, John
Grant, Anthony
Maginnis, John E.


Black, Sir Cyril
Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
Maude, Angus


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Grieve, Percy
Mawby, Ray


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Braine, Bernard
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)



Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Brewis, John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Montgomery, Fergus


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hastings, Stephen
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hawkins, Paul
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bullus, Sir Eric
Heseltine, Michael
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Burden, F. A.
Higgins, Terence L,
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Hill, J. E. B.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Holland, Philip
Nott, John


Carlisle, Mark
Hordern, Peter
Onslow, Cranley


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hornby, Richard
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Channon, H. P. G.
Hunt, John
Percival, Ian


Clark, Henry
Hutch son, Michael Clark
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Clegg, Walter
Iremonger, T. L.
Pink, R. Bonner


Cooke, Robert
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pounder, Rafton


Corfield, F. V.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Costain, A. P.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Prior, J. M. L.


Crouch, David
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Pym, Francis


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Jopling, Michael
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Currie, G. B. H.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)




Russell, Sir Ronald
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Wiggin, A. W.


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Tilney, John
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Silvester, Frederick
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wright, Esmond


Speed, Keith
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Wylie, N. R.


Stainton, Keith
Waddington, David
Younger, Hn. George


Stoddart-scott, Col. Sir M.
Walker, Peter (Worcester)



Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Ward, Dame Irene
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Temple, John M.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Mr. Hector Monro.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Anderson, Donald
Gregory, Arnold
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Archer, Peter
Gray, Charles (Durham)
Neal, Harold


Armstrong, Ernest
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)



Ashley, Jack
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Newens, Stan


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Norwood, Christopher


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Ogden, Eric


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Hannan, William
O'Malley, Brian


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oram, Albert E.


Barnett, Joel
Haseldine, Norman
Orbach, Maurice


Bidwell, Sydney
Hazell, Bert
Orme, Stanley


Bishop, E. S.
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Oswald, Thomas


Blackburn, F.
Hooley, Frank
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Horner, John
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Palmer, Arthur



Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Booth, Albert
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pardoe, John


Boyden, James
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Park, Trevor


Bradley, Tom
Hynd, John
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Janner, Sir Barnett
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Brooks, Edwin
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Judd, Frank
Price, William (Rugby)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Kelley, Richard
Probert, Arthur


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Kenyon, Clifford
Rankin, John


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Rees, Merlyn


Concannon, J. D.
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lawson, George
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Crawshaw, Richard
Leadbitter, Ted
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederik (Newton)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Dalyell, Tam
Lee, John (Reading)
Ryan, John


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Lector, Miss Joan
Sheldon, Robert


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lipton, Marcus
Silverman, Julius


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lubbock, Eric
Skeffington, Arthur


Delargy, Hugh
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Slater, Joseph


Dell, Edmund
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Spriggs, Leslie


Dempsey, James
MacColl, James
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Dewar, Donald
Macdonald, A. H.
Symonds, J. B.


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
McGuire, Michael
Taverne, Dick


Dickens, James
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Tinn, James


Dobson, Ray
Mackenz e, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Tuck, Raphael


Doig, Peter
Mackintosh, John P.
Varley, Eric G.


Dunn, James A.
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dunnett, Jack
MacPherson, Malcolm
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Ellis, John
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


English, Michael
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Wallace, George


Ensor, David
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Wellbeloved, James


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Manuel, Archie
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Fernyhough, E.
Mapp, Charles
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Marks, Kenneth
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vate)
Mayhew, Christopher
Woof, Robert


Ford, Ben
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert



Forrester, John
Mendelson, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Freeson, Reginald
Millan, Bruce
Mr. Ernest G. Perry and


Gardner, Tony
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Garrett, W. E.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)

New Clause 17

OPTING OUT OF OPTION MORTGAGES

Any person who effectively elected that a loan to him should be subsidised in accordance with Part II of the Housing Subsidies Act, 1967 may by notice in writing to the lender (in such form, at such time and in such manner as the Minister may direct) elect

that the loan shall, as from the 1st April, 1970 or on any third anniversary of that date, no longer be so subsidised—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put. That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 129, Noes 177.

Division No. 272.]
AYES
[7.5 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Grieve, Percy
Nott, John


Awdry, Daniel
Hall-Davies, A. G. F.
Onslow, Cranley


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pardoe, John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Percival, Ian


Bell, Ronald
Hastings, Stephen
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Biffen, John
Hawkins, Paul
Pink, R. Bonner


Black, Sir Cyril
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pounder, Rafton


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. w.)

Prior, J. M. L.



Heseltine, Michael
Pym, Francis


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Higgins, Terence L.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Braine, Bernard
Hill, J. E. B.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Brewis, John
Holland, Philip
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hordern, Peter
Russell, Sir Ronald


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hornby, Richard
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Hunt, John
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Speed, Keith


Burden, F. A.
Iremonger, T. L.
Stainton, Keith


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Carlisle, Mark
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Temple, John M.


Channon, H. P. G.
Jopling, Michael
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Clark, Henry
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Tilney, John


Clegg, Walter
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Cooke, Robert
Knight, Mrs. Jill
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Corfield, F. V.

Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Costain, A. P.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Waddington, David


Crouch, David
Lubbock, Eric
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
MacArthur, Ian
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Currie, G. B. H.
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Ward, Dame Irene


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
McMaster, Stanley
Wells, John (Maidstone)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
McNair-Wilson, Michael (W'stow, E.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Maddan, Martin
Wiggin, A. W.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maude, Angus
Williams, Donald (Dudley)



Mawby, Ray
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Eyre, Reginald
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wright, Esmond


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wylie, N. R.


Fortescue, Tim
Montgomery, Fergus
Younger, Hn. George


Foster, Sir John
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)



Gibston-Watt, David
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Glover, Sir Douglas
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Mr. Hector Monro and


Gower, Raymond
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Mr. Humphrey Atkins.


Grant, Anthony
Nicholls, Sir Harmar





NOES


Abse, Leo
Broughton, Sir Alfred
Dewar, Donald


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John


Anderson, Donald
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Dickens, James


Archer, Peter
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Dobson, Ray


Ashley, Jack
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Doig, Peter


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Dunn, James A.


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Dunnett, Jack


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Concannon, J. D.
Ellis, John


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
English, Michael


Barnett, Joel
Crawshaw, Richard
Ensor, David


Bidwell, Sydney
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)


Bishop, E. S.
Dalyell, Tam
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)


Blackburn, F.
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Fernyhough, E.


Blenkinsoa, Arthur
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Booth, Albert
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Boyden, James
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Ford, Ben


Bradley, Tom
Delargy, Hugh
Forrester, John


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Dell, Edmund
Gardner, Tony


Brooks, Edwin
Dempsey, James
Garrett, W. E.




Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Gregory, Arnold
MacColl, James
Pentland, Norman


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Macdonald, A. H.
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McGuire, Michael
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Price, William (Rugby)


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
MacPherson, Malcolm
Probert, Arthur


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Rankin, John


Hannan, William
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Rees, Merlyn


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Haseldine, Norman
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Hazell, Bert
Manuel, Archie
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mapp, Charles
Ryan, John


Hooley, Frank
Marks, Kenneth
Sheldon, Robert


Horner, John
Marquand, David
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Mayhew, Christopher
Silverman, Julius


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Skeffington, Arthur


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mendelson, John
Slater, Joseph


Hynd, John
Millan, Bruce
Spriggs, Leslie


Janner, Sir Barnett
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Symonds, J. B.


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Taverne, Dick


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Tinn, James


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Tuck, Raphael



Neal, Harold
Varley, Eric G.


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Newens, Stan
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Judd, Frank
Norwood, Christopher
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Kelley, Richard
Ogden, Eric
Wallace, George


Kenyon, Clifford
O'Malley, Brian
Watkins, David (Consett)


Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, central)
Oram, Albert E.
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Orbach, Maurice
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Lawson, George
Orme, Stanley
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Leadbitter, Ted
Oswald, Thomas
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Woof, Robert


Lee, John (Reading)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)



Lestor, Miss Joan
Palmer, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Mr. Ernest G. Perry and


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Park, Trevor
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Lipton, Marcus
Parker, John (Dagenham)

New Clause 18

GUARANTEE OF ADVANCES IN EXCESS OF NORMAL AMOUNT EXTENDED TO NON-OPTION MORTGAGES

In section 30 of the Housing Subsidies Act, 1967 (Guarantee of advances in excess of normal

amount) paragraph (a) shall be omitted.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Brought up, and read the First Time.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 122, Noes 188.

Division No. 273.]
AYES
[7.12 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Costain, A. P.
Hill, J. E. B.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Crouch, David
Holland, Philip


Awdry, Daniel
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Hordern, Peter


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Currie, G. B. H.
Hornby, Richard


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hunt, John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bell, Ronald
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Iremonger, T. L.


Biffen, John
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Eye)


Black, Sir Cyril
Eyre, Reginald
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)



Fortescue, Tim
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Foster, Sir John
Jopling, Michael


Braine, Bernard
Gibson-Watt, David
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Brewis, John
Glover, Sir Douglas
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gower, Raymond
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Grant, Anthony
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
MacArthur, Ian


Bullus, Sir Eric
Grieve, Percy
McMaster, Stanley


Burden, F. A.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maddan, Martin


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maude, Angus


Carisle, Mark
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mawby, Ray


Channon, H. P. G.
Hastings, Stephen
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Clark, Henry
Hawkins, Paul
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Clegg, Walter
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Cooke, Robert
Heseltine, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus


Corfield, F. V.
Higgins, Terence L.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)




Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Munro-Lueas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Russell, Sir Ronald
Ward, Dame Irene


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Speed, Keith
Wiggin, A. W.


Nott, John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Williams, Donad (Dudley)


Onslow, Cranley
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Percival, Ian
Temple, John M.
Wright, Esmond


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Wylie, N. R.


Pink, R. Bonner
Tilney, John
Younger, Hn. George


Pounder, Rafton
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.



Prior, J. M. L.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Pym, Francis
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Mr. Hector Monro and


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Mr. Humphrey Atkins.


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Waddington, David





NOES


Abse, Leo
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Millan, Bruce


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Anderson, Donald
Gregory, Arnold
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Archer, Peter
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Ashley, Jack
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Neal, Harold


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Newers, Stan


Bagier, Cordon A. T.
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Norwood, Christopher


Batsford, Brian
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Ogden, Eric


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
O'Malley, Brian


Bishop, E. S.
Hannan, William
Oram, Albert E.


Blackburn, F.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orbach, Maurice


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Haseldine, Norman
Orme, Stanley


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hazell, Bert
Oswald, Thomas


Booth, Albert
Herbiscn, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Boyden, James
Hooley, Frank
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Bradley, Tom
Horner, John
Palmer, Arthur


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Brooks, Edwin
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Pardoe, John


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Park, Trevor



Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Hynd, John
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Pentland, Norman


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Price, William (Rugby)


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Probert, Arthur


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Judd, Frank
Rankin, John


Crawshaw, Richard
Kelley, Richard
Rees, Merlyn


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Kenyon, Cliford
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dalyell, Tam
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Ryan, John


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lawson, George
Sheldon, Robert


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Leadbitter, Ted
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lee, John (Reading)
Silverman, Julius


Davies, Ifor (Cower)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Skeffington, Arthur


Delargy, Hugh
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)
Slater, Joseph


Dell, Edmund
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Dempsey, James
Lipton, Marcus
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Dewar, Donald
Lubbock, Eric
Symonds, J. B.


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Taverne, Dick


Dickens, James
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Tinn, James


Dobson, Ray
MacColl, James
Tuck, Raphael


Doig, Peter
Macdonald, A. H.
Varley, Eric G.


Dunn, James A.
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dunnett, Jack
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ellis, John
MacPherson, Malcolm
Wallace, George


English, Michael
Matron, Peter (Preston, S.)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Ensor, David
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Fernyhough, E.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Manuel, Archie
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mapp, Charles
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marks, Kenneth
Woof, Robert


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Marquand, David



Ford, Ben
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Forrester, John
Mayhew, Christopher
Mr. Ernest G. Perry and


Gardner, Tony
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Garrett, W. E.
Mendelson, John

New Clause 22

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR STRENGTHENING OF HIGH TOWER BLOCKS

The percentage of grant payable by the Minister of Housing and Local Government towards the costs incurred by local authorities in the strengthening of high tower blocks as a result of the Ronan Point disaster shall be increased from 40 per cent. to 60 per cent.—[Mr. Arthur Lewis.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I beg to move That the Clause be read a Second time.
I think it will be convenient if we take with this Amendment No. 164, in the Title, line 18, after 'rent', insert:
'to increase the percentage of grant payable to local authorities for the strengthening of high tower blocks'.
May I express my thanks to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity of raising the subject, and may I also apologise to hon. Members if I go on for a greater length than has been the case so far, because the Clause and the Amendment affect the whole question of the Ronan Point disaster, which has not been debated during the passage of the Bill. Although the disaster was in May of last year and a special Committee of Inquiry was set up to investigate it, there has never been a debate on any matters dealing with the disaster or the strengthening of tower blocks. The Clause deals with this, but it is of a much more general nature, because it will affect all local authorities which have buildings of this kind.
It will be recalled that at the time of the Ronan Point disaster when, unfortunately, there were a few casualties but, fortunately, not as many as there might have been, everyone was very sympathetic and made understanding comments and expressed sympathy with those who had lost their loved ones. The Committee of Inquiry was set up under Mr. Hugh Griffiths, Q.C., who did an admirable job, with his colleagues. I pay tribute to them.
7.30 p.m.
When the Griffiths Report was published on 6th November, 1968, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government made a statement to

the House. I do not suggest that he said that the Government would meet the cost, but, thanks to you, Mr. Speaker, I was able to put a supplementary question to my right hon. Friend, and I asked him whether the Government would meet the cost. I think that the feeling in the House was that he made a sympathetic reply. Hence, all local authorities affected got on with the job of seeing what could be done to strengthen tower blocks in their areas, waiting for settlement day.
In the interim, quite rightly, my right hon. Friend issued a directive, arising from the report, which instructed councils to take action to strengthen tower blocks and so prevent similar disasters to the one at Ronan Point. A number of authorities decided to get on with the job, and they did it expecting the day to come when the cost would be worked out and they would be reimbursed.
On 6th June of this year the Minister told one of the local authority associations that the Government would make an offer of 40 per cent. of the cost, leaving the local authorities saddled with 60 per cent. First, I want to know why the Government made an offer. On what basis have they chosen to contribute 40 per cent., and on what basis have they chosen to saddle the local authorities with 60 per cent.?
Sixty per cent. is a remarkably popular figure with the Government. The Chairmen of the nationalised industries have been given a 60 per cent. pay rise, and now the poor ratepayers of a number of local authorities, including my own, are faced with having to meet 60 per cent. of these costs. This is unfair in' principle, and it is particularly unjust to the Borough of Newham, comprising the old boroughs of East and West Ham. In the war, they were the worst bombed boroughs. They lost over a third of their accommodation of all types and had tremendous post-war housing problems as a result. In addition, they had an enormous slum clearance problem.
Knowing the difficulties and the lack of land in the area, they listened to the advice of various Governments and got on with the job of rehousing their people. Obviously, they would have preferred to build detached and semi-detached houses, but that was physically impossible. They had to build upwards, and they decided


to build tower blocks. They were advised by the Ministry about the safety and other precautions which should be taken, and the blocks were built to Ministry standards.
Now the Borough of Newham is to be saddled with a debt of 60 per cent. of the cost, and it will have to pay for the fact that it was the worst bombed borough. That is a great liability to the local authority, in spite of the subsidies. It must be remembered that a local authority represents its inhabitants. It is they who find the money. Even if a local authority borrows, it is the local ratepayers eventually who have to pay.
As a result of the advice of past Governments—and I do not condemn them for it—my council got on with the job. There are tower blocks all over the borough, and a loan debt of £87 million has been incurred. That has to be paid. Interest rates have not gone down, and the council is having to find more money. The result is that the rates go up to pay for it.
Now the Minister has issued a circular. In other circumstances, my choice of words would be considered unparliamentary. I content myself with saying, "Of all the nerve!" My right hon. Friend says that if any council cannot find the money, the Government will grant it loan sanction. What a thundering cheek! He is saying, "If you cannot find the 60 per cent., you can borrow it", ignoring the fact that the local ratepayers will have to find the money eventually.
Many of my constituents were bombed out four, five and six times. On each occasion, they shifted their homes. A number of them have waited 20 years to get a house, and some have not got houses even now. From 1939 to the present day, they have paid high rates. Today, their children are grown up, and they, too, are paying high rents and rates. Now, it appears that the children's children will be saddled with higher rates to pay for this imposition of 60 per cent. of the cost which is to be put on the local authority.
My Clause suggests that, instead of a council having to meet 60 per cent. and the Government 40 per cent., it should be the other way round, with the Government meeting 60 per cent. and the council

meeting 40 per cent. I do that quite deliberately, although I feel that the Government morally ought to meet 100 per cent. of the cost. There is a method in my madness. I want to know why the Government have hit upon 60 per cent. and 40 per cent. The Minister may suggest that it is fair, but it could be said to be equally fair the other way round. Instead of the Minister dodging his responsibility and meeting only 40 per cent., I suggest that the Government's proportion should be 60 per cent.
I feel strongly about this. People in my constituency tell me that they have waited 20 years for a house and that they are scared to go into Ronan Point type flats, even after strengthening. A near revolt is going on because residents refuse to move into such flats. In the face of such a situation, it is not only parsimonious on the part of the Minister but shocking and degrading to suggest that a local authority like my own should have to pay for the fact that it has suffered this disaster.
Having attacked the Minister, I propose now to let him off the hook a little. Frankly, I do not think that this is the work of my right hon. Friend. The old nigger is present in the woodpile. It is the Treasury which is refusing to part up with the extra money. But why does not my right hon. Friend stand up to the Treasury? Iam sure that every hon. Member will agree that he should go to the Treasury and say that it ought to meet 100 per cent. of the costs.
I do not want to go through the report on the Ronan Point disaster, but in paragraph 47 on page 65 it is said that the Minister of Housing is responsible for the building regulations and that he ought to have kept the regulations up to date. Local authorities, including my own, built these tower blocks according to his specification. The Ronan Point tragedy occurred. I do not apportion blame. I am not concerned with whether it is the builder's, the achitect's or the Ministry's fault. But let us suppose that a local authority accepts the Ministry's advice, strengthens its tower blocks, and there is another disaster. Let us suppose, further, that it is pointed out that the disaster has occurred because the strengthening has not been sufficient. Will the Minister say that, because the authority has accepted his advice, it will


be landed with having to find another astronomical sum?
The new Clause and the Amendment give the Government an opportunity to honour the understanding which I think every hon. Member had and tell the ratepayers of the local authorities concerned that they will not be saddled with yet another increase in rates, which, I am told, may be as much as 1s. in the £.

Mr. Peter Walker: We welcome the Clause proposed so lucidly by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), and we will support him in endeavouring to see that it is carried.
I am pleased that he has explained that the reason for using 60 per cent. in his case was to ascertain the justification for the Minister's choice of proportions. I agree with him that very nearly all the cost should be met from central funds.
I want to draw to the attention of hon. Members the real burden that this will be upon a number of local authorities, which tend to be those with the most serious housing problems. It is the housing authority with a great shortage of land and the need for a major redevelopment of property which has been forced, reluctantly, to go in for building tower blocks. Given the choice of semi-detached houses with gardens and high blocks, I know of no local authority which would not choose the former. But certain authorities with particularly bad housing problems and land limitations have been forced to go in for this type of building. They will have to foot an enormous bill.
I remind the House of the protracted history of this disaster and of what I consider to be the Minister's reluctance to come to important conclusions on it. If at the time of the disaster the Minister had quickly said that on a preliminary examination of responsibility the Government would meet only 40 per cent. of the cost the public outcry would have been such that it would have been impossible for the Government to carry the day. Only after a long delay during which interest in the disaster has rather fallen into the background because, fortunately, there has not been a similar disaster are the Government able to announce their decision, in a letter.
The disaster took place on 17th May, 1968. On 24th May there was a meeting

of officers at the Ministry and there was discussion about the possibility of excluding gas from tall blocks. No conclusions were reached. On 6th August Mr. Hugh Griffiths, the chairman of the inquiry, sent an advance warning to the Minister. On 12th August there was a meeting of officers at the Ministry and local authorities were told to make an appraisal of all system-built blocks. Local authorities immediately reacted, saying that the financial implications would be enormous, and they sought the Minister's guidance about how they would be met. The Minister said only one thing. He said on 15th August that no cost should fall on the tenants. By the Minister's present proposals, costs will fall on the tenants, and also on tenants in other local authorities concerned. I do not think that even this Government would contemplate putting the cost on the tenants who suffered as a result of the disaster, but there will be a cost on many local authority tenants.
Thereafter the local authorities undertook the task of scrutinising what action needed to be taken. In November, the Minister prepared a draft circular on the measures needed for strengthening. At that stage the Government knew what needed to be done. They had the report on the disaster. There was no reason why at that stage they could not give a clear indication about the distribution of cost that they had in mind. The distribution of cost certainly has not been affected by the magnitude of the Bill. Presumably, the higher the cost, the less burden the right hon. Gentleman would put on the ratepayers. The cost is of gigantic proportions.
On 25th February this year, there was yet another meeting at the Ministry with the local authority officers concerned. They were told that the Ministry still had not come to a decision about who should meet the cost and they were sent back to consider, if they had not already done so, the extent to which contractors and structural engineers were liable. Most of them were able to tell the Minister that there would be no great joy in going down that avenue because they had already explored it. Nothing happened until this month, when the Minister sent a letter to local authorities which he published.
I wish to argue most strongly against the Minister's reasons why he should


bear only 40 per cent. of the cost. There were two sides to the local authorities' argument. The first was that the Ministry had pressed local authorities to go in for industrialised building. I hope that the Ministry view today is that industrialised building has a considerable rôle to play in future housing programmes. I hope that the Ronan Point disaster will have no long term adverse effects on industrialised building. Many of the things that the Minister has said on the Ronan Point disaster indicate that he is anxious that that should not happen. Therefore, all the way along, the Government have encouraged local authorities to go in for industrialised building. Secondly, the Government are responsible for the building regulations, and these blocks were built in compliance with them.
7.45 p.m.
The Minister argued against both these points, and I want to read the letter which he sent to local authorities in which he did so. First, on the question of encouraging this type of building, the letter says:
The Minister does not accept that the whole burden of financial responsibility is properly attributable to the Housing Ministries. High building is necessary in some areas, but it has not been a feature of Government policy to encourage it for its own sake; in fact the Department's publication' Flats and Houses, 1958; Design and Economy', Circular 40/63 … and the encouragement which the Housing Cost Yardstick gives to building at the minimum heights requisite to the density to be achieved, all reflect the general view expressed in the 1963 circular that 'the most economical scheme for a given density will be that which keeps the proportion of high building to a minimum'".
This is the Minister's first argument, and it is an appallingly bad one. He argues that he does not have much responsibility for high building and that it should be kept to a minimum.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. Gentleman should emphasise that the Minister admitted that it is necessary in some areas.

Mr. Walker: I was about to deal with that point. The Minister argued that the Ministry had not encouraged high building and said that it should be kept to a minimum. But, in his letter, the right hon. Gentleman says that it is necessary

in some areas. In places like Salford and parts of London and Nottingham it is necessary. The Minister's first argument, namely, that the responsibility should not be his because the Ministry has not encouraged high building, falls to the ground as a result of the phrase in his own letter to the effect that it is a necessity in some areas. Those areas in which it has unfortunately been a necessity are now to be financially penalised.
The Minister's letter goes on to say:
As to the use of industrialised building for this purpose, the Minister accepts that the extended use of industrialised building has been a feature of the policy of both the present administration and its predecessor. But industrialised building is not confined to system-built high blocks".
The right hon. Gentleman goes on to quote circulars which suggest that it should be applied to low and medium rise flats. So what? The fact is that the Minister has been in favour of industrialised building; he has pressed it on local authorities. He agrees that it is necessary for some local authorities to build high rise flats. They have built them in accordance with industrial building techniques which he favours and have kept completely to the building regulations.
The right hon. Gentleman goes on to argue against the building regulation argument. He says:
… the Minister does not expect that on reflection the associations would wish to press seriously the proposition that the existence of a regulating function must oblige the regulating authority to take financial responsibility for every subsequent occurrence".
I agree with that, as would any local authority, because the authorities have to apply the regulations. But when a new building technique is adopted the building regulations which a Government decide to apply to it should be thought out with considerable care.
The report discloses that the building regulations for high rise industrialised building of the Ronan Point type were not adequate and sufficient. These regulations were applied to a new technique, and the fact that the Government failed to produce building regulations which were not sufficient to guarantee these buildings against relatively minor explosions puts a very heavy burden on the Government. I do not blame the


Government for it when mistakes of this nature are probably likely. I would not condemn a Government if a mistake of this nature occurred. I am not technically equipped to say how serious a blunder it was in not putting in the right regulations on these points. There is, however, a strong obligation to see that the building regulations are adequate. Therefore, I do not believe that the Minister in his letter countered the two major points made by the local authorities.
The Minister went on in his letter, as the hon. Member for West Ham, North has suggested, to point out the financial arrangements in a most remarkable way. I want to question the Minister about this. First, I consider 40 per cent. to be completely inadequate. The Minister states that if the burden is too tough to carry all in one year, he will give a loan. At what rate will the loan be? Will it be at the current rate of the Public Works Loan Board or at the 4 per cent. rate connected with housing projects? This is an enormous factor, because for certain local authorities which are involved in millions of £s, the difference between 4 per cent. and the 9¾ per cent. now charged by the Board is enormous.
Secondly, how will this be treated by the local authorities in their accounts? Is this a matter to be dealt with in their housing accounts? If so, it will mean that council house tenants bear the burden in higher rents. If it is not to be dealt with in the housing account, how will the Minister lay down that this expenditure is not paid for out of the housing account? This is a vital question If these millions of £s are to be met from the housing account, council tenants alone, and not the ratepayers, will bear the cost. If, however, the burden is to be met outside the housing account—and it concerns primarily housing expenditure—this heavy burden will fall upon ratepayers throughout the country.
I wish to draw attention to the cost that this will entail. I gather that Salford, for example, if it has to meet the bill, will face an enormous burden. Salford puts the cost at about £1 million, including £600,000 for construction. How can the Minister say to a local authority like Salford, which heaven knows has enough problems as an area, that because

of the fault in the regulations and because of its misfortune in using a system of building which the Minister encouraged, the council house tenants of Salford now have to find 60 per cent. of £1 million?
London puts the total cost as probably something like £2½ million. It knows that on the blocks already built the cost will be £1,661,000. On some of the blocks under construction, the cost will be £858,000. There are other blocks on which the cost has not yet been assessed, and there is still the possibility of considerable penalties to be paid as a result of contract delays. The Greater London Council and the London boroughs, therefore, have an enormous burden.
In Birmingham, an enormous number of flats is involved. For Nottingham City, the total cost is expected to be about £850,000. Glasgow—and all these are bad housing areas where the pressure is greatest—puts the cost at about £1·4 million, and Edinburgh at £600,000.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: What is the Newham figure?

Mr. Walker: Newham comes within the London figures.

Mr. James Dempsey: When the hon. Member quotes Glasgow, will he be good enough to say whether the 60/40 arrangement for England and Wales applies equally to Scotland?

Mr. Walker: Yes, I presume that it does.

Mr. N. R. Wylie: Yes, it does.

Mr. Walker: I gather that a letter has gone from the Scottish Office to that effect.
All these areas, whether in Scotland or in England, we recognise to be the areas of the worst housing problems, where there is a need to build high rise flats of this type.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. Member has referred to the poor areas. I hoped that he would deal with the Minister's letter, which has the audacity to suggest that if the local authority associations are willing and agree to a fairer redistribution and, in effect, accept a loss of part


of the money by allocating it to the poorer areas like Newham, my right hon. Friend would agree. Does the hon. Member envisage any local authority saying, "We do not want 40 per cent. We will make do with 5 per cent. if the balance is given over to Newham"?

Mr. Walker: I agree. I regarded that suggestion at the end of the Minister's letter as an expression of his guilt complex. He was desperately struggling for a way of putting upon somebody else the onus of getting fair treatment.
In total, therefore, we have the situation that a small number of local authorities-I do not blame the Government; all Governments wish to encourage industrialised building and recognise that certain areas have to build high flats—suddenly have this vast burden put upon them to the tune of 60 per cent. This is a remarkable failure by the Minister.
The hon. Member for West Ham, North, in trying to find an excuse for the Minister, said that the blame must be that of the Treasury and not the Minister. He almost said that the Minister was a nice chap and could not have done anything like this. But the Minister must bear full responsibility, because he announced and accepted the Treasury decision.
Even from a Treasury point of view, it is an appallingly bad argument that the expenditure should be met in the way they suggest. I can imagine the Treasury saying, "We do not want money spent on certain things because of the state of the economy". Everybody agrees, however, that this money must be spent. If we are not careful, certain local authorities will do the minimum that is necessary. My real fear from the Ministry's meanness on this issue is that the local authorities which have acted the speediest—and London was very good in this way—and those which have taken the most complete precautions against any further disaster—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Like Newham.

Mr. Walker: —are those which have to foot a much higher bill. The imposition of such an enormous burden on local authorities will start to make one or two of them, where there is a possibility of doing this or that degree of strengthening,

say that 60 per cent. of the cost, will probably be all right. That would be a very dangerous position.
I therefore plead with the Minister to listen to the arguments which, I know, he will hear from both sides of the House, to go back to the local authorities and discuss this with them and to come up with a much fairer and better decision.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Ronan Point was a social disaster, but looked at nationally it was not a financial disaster. It is, however, a calamity for a small number of towns. We are pleading, therefore, that the whole nation should share the burden which will otherwise fall on this limited number of afflicted areas.
I should like to know from my right hon. Friend the Minister the estimated total national expenditure. I would not like to make a guess, but I would think that it is infinitesimally small compared with some of the other items which appear in the Treasury expenditure list.
8.0 p.m.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has made out a powerful case. My local authority is in many ways in a similar position, and my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) will no doubt try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There are on the Salford housing list families who have been waiting for 20 years. Salford, like Newham, was bombed in the war, it has few wealthy people and a legacy from the industrial revolution of shocking housing, much of it a hundred years old.
It is particularly tie areas of poor housing which will be hit financially. Many areas of poor housing have no alternative but to build multi-storey flats because they are so heavily industrialised and built up that no land is available, and must build up to the sky. These are the weakest areas financially, and it is these areas which will be hardest hit.
A cost of £1 million for Salford is a much heavier burden than £2·5 million for the whole of London. The cost per member of the population is much higher. The Conservative council of Salford—and I am not speaking politically—has stated that unless greater compensation is given there will have to be a steep increase in council rents or a steep increase in rates, or both.

Mr. Peter Walker: The hon. Gentleman mentioned London, but I think he has misunderstood the position. Alas, in London the burden falls heavily on some boroughs.

Mr. Allaun: I agree that this is so. I was using the figure to show that a cost of £1 million for the city of Salford is high in proportion to its population.
In addition to the financial burden, there will be indescribable domestic upheaval. Eleven blocks of flats are affected, and there are about 100 flats in each block. Six blocks are occupied and five are reaching the occupation stage. What is to happen to the 600 families already in occupation? They cannot stay in the flats while they are being made safe. They have to be decanted, to use a horrible phrase, and put somewhere else temporarily. New houses, however, are not available. Because the 500 flats cannot now be used, people involved in slum clearance are sent further back in the queue.
It has been suggested that if families have to be moved out of flats it would be better if they were allowed to stay in their new accommodation and not move back again after the flats have been repaired, since this would mean two removals. These families are mostly working families on a low income. They have gone to considerable expense in fitting up their new homes with, let us say, fitted carpets and curtains. If those families are moved into other accommodation all those things will be wasted. Tremendous human problems are involved which the Government cannot compensate for, but at least those families should not also have to bear the financial burden.
These blocks of flats were built on Government advice. I am not blaming only the Labour Government, but the Conservative Government as well, because industrial building started long before 1964. I blame also the National Building Agency which has a heavy responsibility. Much more stringent regulations should have been made. Sufficient account has not been taken either of high wind velocities.
What contribution will the building firms make—Taylor Woodrow and the other firms, not direct labour firms, but private enterprise? They introduced

these new systems; surely they should bear part of the financial burden. They have made large profits. I suggest that some contribution should be made by Taylor Woodrow and other firms before extra dividends are paid to their shareholders.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that if the building firms were to contribute, the contributions would be set against profits and the taxpayer would pay in any case. It would make no difference.

Mr. Allaun: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman puts that point to the managing director of Taylor Woodrow and hears his reply.
Of the £1 million for Salford, the compensation will amount to £400,000, leaving £600,000 to be raised. This will be borrowed, as the Minister said. After interest at market rates over 60 years has been paid on that £600,000 the total figure will be over £3 million. This is not chicken feed. The loan should be obtainable at the 4 per cent. subsidised rate which the Labour Government gives on new council house building. That is about the best thing that the Labour Government have done, and it should apply to loans for this purpose.
Local authorities are now 85 per cent. Conserative controlled and, unless better compensation is forthcoming, many councils—I am not saying all—will use this as an excuse to stop council house building. Even without this excuse, Conservative controlled councils are cutting down council house building. If we give them the excuse that they have to bear this inordinate cost for strengthening tower blocks then council house building in many areas will stop completely.
The Minister has urged local authorities to "avoid delay in remedial work". He is absolutely right. Thousands of families desperately need new flats, and it would be a tragedy if there were delay in putting these flats into a safe condition. In other words, they should be strengthened structurally and, where necessary, there should be a change from gas to electricity. But there is a threat in certain quarters of Salford Council that unless greater compensation is given it will delay remedial work.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Minister, in answer to a Question that I put on this point said that he has no power to compel councils to do anything. If the council refuses to take action, he has no saction against them. That surely strengthens the point.

Mr. Allaun: It certainly strengthens the argument for financial inducement to be given to councils. I conclude by pleading with the Minister to grant what is set out in the new Clause, namely, 60 per cent. rather than 40 per cent. relief to stricken authorities as the least that should be offered in the circumstances.

Wing Commander Sir Eric Bullus: This is a most important Clause. The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) is to be congratulated on having put down this new Clause. Not for the first time he has put considerations of justice and equity before what might be considered to be the party line. If we do not get a satisfactory answer, I hope that he will lead us into the Division Lobby.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. Member has my assurance.

Sir E. Bullus: I do not want to deploy all the arguments which have already been put forward by the hon. Member for West Ham, North and by my hon. Friend on the Front Bench, the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker). I support all that they have said. This is a most important matter, and I should like to draw attention to the effects of this provision upon my own constituency.
There has been considerable building development on the Chalkhill Estate in the Wembley area, which is now part of the Brent Borough Council. The Minister, for whom I have great regard, has shown great interest in this area, and there has been what I consider to be considerable Government interference in the project. When the Minister determines what rents should be charged and interferes with the the policy of the local council, then he has a great responsibility for the amount of money which should be paid to local authorities.
Some five years ago municipal council housing in Wembley was in balance: it had a differential rent scheme. But when Wembley was merged willy-nilly with Willesden it inherited a great housing

deficit. We are short of housing land and we, like many other boroughs, have had to build upwards. As I have said, considerable development is taking place in the Chalkhill area. In the Chalkhill development £408,000 is required for strengthening work in tower blocks. The council will receive from the Government £160,000, which is not enough.
In another development, the Adam Count flats in Sudbury, £5,000 is required. My concern is that if we do not get more than £160,000 it will mean an increase in rates and inevitably an increase in rents. When the Minister will not allow us to put on an economic rent, what are we to do? Many councils are affected by this problem.
I should like the Minister in reply to give us the views of the Association of Municipal Corporations, of which I am a vice president. They feel that 40 per cent. is far too low a figure. What would the global figure be if the contribution from the Government amounted to 100 per cent. for the strengthening of existing flats? Could he also give us the global figure if the contribution were 60 per cent., or if it remains at 40 per cent.?
I know that the Minister has a great interest in this matter, and perhaps it is the Treasury which is the stumbling block. However, I hope that he will stand up to the Treasury and realise that the proposal is far too small and that, if we are to have the necessary safety provision, there must be a larger contribution from Government funds.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Orme: This is the first time the House has had an opportunity to discuss all the issues flowing from the Ronan Point disaster. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham. North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) is to be complimented in putting down the Clause. I wish to apologise for not being in my place during his speech, but I was attending an important meeting, and I am sure that he will understand.
I should like to raise an important moral issue, quite apart from the financial aspect. Following the disaster it was found that these flats were unfortunately below standard. Perhaps these projects were rushed into at too great a pace without enough experimentation having taken place. Experiments are now being conducted on high wind density and


have yet to be concluded. After the disaster the Minister decided that a measure of strengthening was essential. There was a Ministry circular to authorities to this effect, but it was not made mandatory on authorities to bring buildings up to a proper standard of safety.
The Minister in various Answers has said that he has no powers of this sort, but I believe that the matter is of such importance that he ought to take such powers. If a figure of only 40 per cent. is to be offered, many local authorities will not proceed to take action. In my area both officials and council members are worried sick about this issue. They are not merely thinking of the financial burden but carry a great moral responsibility for the tenants who reside in these flats. We cannot stand by and hope that another disaster will not occur such as occurred at Ronan Point. These flats should be put right.
The Minister will know from the correspondence which has passed between us and from the meeting which I and my hon. Friends had with him before he made his decision that we have impressed upon him that we feel there should be some directive. If a directive is issued, then there must be a large measure of financial responsibility. The Clause is really very modest indeed. I was shocked at the low percentage of contribution put forward by the Minister. Surely there could be a payment more in line with normal Government grants for major developments in local authorities. Normally the Government contributes 75 per cent. to local authorities, and the local authority itself must find 25 per cent. which gives it a real financial responsibility, but the main burden is carried by the taxpayer.
How can a city such as Salford find £600,000 on either short-term or long-term loan? It will be almost an impossibility to find such a sum on top of the already overriding burden which is now carried by the city. It has been said that the whole problem is related to high density areas and urban and city populations in special selected areas throughout the country.

Mr. Dempsey: Consultant engineers were employed in the construction of these high rise flats, and surely they also have a responsibility. Does my hon.

Friend not feel that they should make a contribution from the hefty insurance moneys in which they are involved?

Mr. Orme: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am not saying that responsibility should not be shared round between these consulting engineers, builders and so forth. But in the end they will come back to the argument that their proposals were approved by the Ministry. Therefore, whilst I agree that there is a need to share this responsibility—I was not excluding that—nevertheless, we must return to the central Government as the main factor within this matter.
In Britain there are areas of terribly bad housing—the legacy of the 19th century. With respect, many hon. Members on both sides are not aware, as are those of us who come from and represent such areas, of some of the outstanding housing problems that need to be solved in those areas.
We are talking about selected areas, deprived areas, like Salford where these flats are being built. There are 10 blocks in my constituency—five occupied and five unoccupied. The upset and the cost of transporting the people in the five blocks which have been completed to new homes, even temporarily, will be absolutely colossal. The effect in my hon. Friend's constituency, just across the road as it were, where there are hundreds of houses due for clearance in the Odsall area, will be to delay this work by as much as 12 months or even two years, because the housing available for occupation this year, if the transfer is made, cannot be used. It is not just a financial loss; it is a setback in the house-building programme.
I think that my right hon. Friend ought to take encouragement from the Opposition Front Bench, because it would appear that they have no objection to greater public expenditure on this issue. He has made a special effort concerning deprived areas, for which £25 million has been found. However, he should ask the Treasury for an increased grant for the areas about which I have been speaking. We should tackle this problem quickly. The money should be found, the flats ought to be put right, and we ought not to be debating for the next five, 10, 15 or 20 years whether they are


safe and whether we shall have any problems with them.
I do not want to reiterate the very cogent points which have already been made. When my hon. Friend and I discussed the matter with my right hon. Friend I believe that he had a real feeling of social responsibility. I can assure him of our support if he goes for the extra money. I believe that he has a good case. We should not wait until there is a national disaster and everybody wrings his hands and says, "Why was not something done about it?" It might even cost us three times as much if such an occasion arose.
Therefore, I urge my right hon. Friend to accept the Clause. I believe that it is insufficient, particularly for a city like Salford, but perhaps his Ministry will have another look at the whole issue. This matter is of paramount public importance. I can assure my right hon. Friend that I have discussed this matter with people of all points of view in Salford and that there is a great feeling of unease which I suggest should be removed.

Mr. Rossi: I do not envy the Minister, because he has clearly reached a point where he is without a friend in the House. Just as we are united in congratulating and thanking the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on bringing forward this new Clause, we are also united in our condemnation of the Minister because he has been so intransigent and will not assist local authorities to a greater extent than he has offered. But more than the mere question of the 40–60 per cent., which of itself causes anxiety and worry among the local authorities, what loses the right hon. Gentleman his friends is the way that he has sought to justify these figures and has sought to shuffle off responsibility and, in shuffling off responsibility, suggesting that he is being extremely generous in making an offer of 40 per cent. of the cost in any case. What is also resented is the indication that appears to have been given that these figures are in no way negotiable.
I should like to pursue the question of responsibility. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) has already made reference to the open letter of self-justification and has dealt adequately with the matters contained in

it. However, I should like to go back a little further in history.
The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) is right when he says that the desire for industrialised building did not start with the present Administration. In, I think, 1962–63, the then Administration began to press upon local authorities the desire to consider using industrialised building systems and methods that did not require so much skilled labour, of which we were in short supply in the building industry at that time, to speed up the housing programme.
I recall full well the discussions that took place then between the Minister and the Association of Municipal Corporations. Study groups were organised and sent off to Scandinavia and to France to be shown the wonders of these systems. After these study groups came back, the Minister requested the A.M.C. to organise regional conferences throughout the country, the object of which was to persuade local authorities to join together in consortia because it was felt that in that way the greatest economic use could be made of industrialised building. That is where the impetus came from. The pressure started from the Minister, or one of his predecessors, suggesting that these systems be adopted.
It is disengenuous to suggest, as has been suggested in the open letter, that in doing this we were not really talking about tall rise buildings, because the real value of industrialised building, the greatest scope for industrialised building, is to be able to build these very tall blocks of flats which cannot be so well and easily built by normal conventional methods. Rightly or wrongly, in the minds of everybody in those days industrialised building and tall block flats went hand in hand. Perhaps it was wrong that it should have been so, but to talk in those days of industrialised building was to talk of high rise blocks of flats. The terms were virtually synonymous. This was the mentality, the thinking that was created.
It did not rest there with the General Election of 1954. Things did not come to a full stop then. The present Administration enthusiastically adopted the policy of its Department to endeavour to persuade local authorities to go in more and more for this type of building. This


is made quite plain by the report of Mr. Hugh Griffiths, Q.C.—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourley): Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Member, but I do not think that we can embark on a history of traditional building or industrialised building. The Clause suggests an alteration in the percentage increase, and the hon. Member must relate his remarks to that.

Mr. Rossi: Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I have to stand corrected by you, I shall do so, but I thought that I was directing my remarks to the debate that has taken place about the degree of the Government's responsibility for the state of affairs shown by this report, and therefore the percentage which should be paid by the Government consequent upon their degree of responsibility.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I follow the hon. Member's point but I hope that he will not develop his argument for too long. It is all right to make incidental references to the past, but not to develop his argument for too long on that.

Mr. Rossi: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The report on Ronan Point, in paragraph 177 at page 51, makes it clear that
the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, to quote their own words 'launched a concentrated drive to increase and improve the use of industrialised building methods in house building for the public sector'.
In considering this question of responsibility, we have here the evidence of this report that the Ministry launched a concentrated drive to increase the kind of system that we are discussing this evening, and which resulted in the unhappy disaster at Ronan Point.
The Government launched a concentrated drive at a time when—and I again quote from the report, at paragraph 183—they did not have
qualified engineering staff to advise them
on this particular system. The information was not available, and the Minister could not advise those whom he was trying to persuade to use these systems on their safety or otherwise because the structural engineering staff did not exist within the Ministry to consider these very relevant matters.
We had an entirely foreign system of building. It was foreign in every sense of the word. It was foreign because it was strange and novel to us, and foreign because it was being imported, and being so imported at the behest of the Minister without proper tests being carried out in this country by the very Minister who was trying to persuade local authorities to adopt these methods.
I should have thought that that placed the responsibility full square upon the Minister, and he must live up to it, because, taking the matter one stage further, as the report also says in its recommendations, the Minister is also the person responsible for the building regulations and for seeing that the British standards and codes of practice referred to in the regulations are kept up to date, and that new ones are promulgated as necessary.
It was quite clear at the time that these regulations, these standards, these codes of practice, did not deal with the problems of progressive collapse, and with the effect of high wind on buildings of this kind. We therefore have a triple responsibility. We have the responsibility that it was the Minister who was pressing the local authorities to introduce these methods. We have the responsibility of the Minister having these methods introduced without the qualified staff to advise him on these novel methods which he was asking should be brought into this country. The third responsibility is that he, as the man who sees that the regulations are kept up to date, did not see that they were kept up to date and covered buildings of this kind.
How can he, therefore, seek to shuffle off responsibility in this way? How can he suggest that the local authorities, loyally following his request, his lead, and finding themselves in the cart, should now have to bear the greater financial burden because of his mistakes and because they did what he asked them to do? This is not right, it is not just by any criterio and this is why there is resentment. What people detest more than anything else is injustice, particularly when it is used to try to get out of a financial obligation, as is the case here. I urge the Minister to look at this matter again.
I am principally concerned, of course, like all hon. Members, with my own


constituency. Within the London borough of Haringey, of which my constituency is part, we have blocks built on the Larsen-Neilsen system and we must meet this expense. I am also concerned, of course, with the Greater London area generally, with all the boroughs with this problem and with the Greater London Council.
The figures have been given already tonight as to what this will involve for the ratepayers, but what has not been mentioned—although it is well known to the Minister—is that this burden, added to others which he has created in recent months, may lead to a mid-year increase in Greater London Council rates—which is virtually unheard of. I hope that the Minister will not place the G.L.C. in the position of having to increase its rates halfway through its financial year for something which is primarily his responsibility, because the men and women dealing with the housing problems of that great authority over the years have sought to follow the lead given by him, and his predecessors.
We recognise, of course, that the right hon. Gentleman is, to some extent, tied by what the Treasury says that he can do, but, on a previous occasion in Committee, not connected with this matter, I suggested in humility that if he wants to go down in our history as a great Minister of Housing, as I am sure he does, on principles of this kind he must stand up and fight, fight and fight again for his Department and the people for whom he is responsible.

Mr. Albert Booth: I totally disagree with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) that my right hon. Friend is seeking to be unjust to avoid a financial obligation. I do not believe that my right hon. Friend is seeking to be unjust. I recognise the financial pressures upon any Administration in the total housing programme. However, on other grounds, I would urge my right hon. Friend to accept the new Clause.
No hon. Member who has served on a local authority can be unaware of the degree to which members of local authorities are influenced by the percentage grants for any of their projects. It is no exaggeration to say that when percentage

grants varied more over the range of local services than they do today almost the first question asked in a council committee before a decision was made or a debate started on a project was what the percentage grant involved was. This will obviously influence local authorities in their decision—the measures they should take and the speed with which they should take them—to bring these blocks of flats up to standard and make them safe.
The Minister should consider accepting the Clause because of the possible effect on rents and rates, a matter which is inevitably linked to this issue. Local authorities must decide whether to pass the cost of this increase on to the tenants of the tall flats affected, on to the tenants of tall flats generally or to spread it over the local community as a whole. If my right hon. Friend says that it is a cost which should be spread over the community as a whole, then he must consider whether it should be spread over the community nationally as opposed to the community locally.
It is not the fault of the authorities which chose to go in for building tall blocks of flats that they should be faced with this problem. They decided to build these dwellings in the light of planning considerations affecting the whole country, and particularly in connection with the development of new town centres. It has been vital to good town planning that tall flats should be built in the immediate vicinity of certain town centres, in recognition of the necessity to maintain the population in those areas, and to have these flats occupied quickly. If they are not occupied quickly the whole balance of town planning decisions relating to these town centres will be spoilt, and this is another reason why the Clause should be carefully considered.
It is necessary to re-establish confidence in the safety of the dwellings which require strengthening. If this is not done, one can envisage the attitude of those who are offered tenancies in these flats. Are they to refuse them and, in many cases, stay in deplorable housing conditions because they consider the flats to be unsafe? Are they to wait until new tall flats are built which comply with the latest standards required by the Ministry? Or is the local authority to


seek to induce people to occupy them, without the flats being strengthened, by offering lower rents? If the latter course were adopted the result would be deplorable, particularly if it flowed from a decision not to pay higher grants for strengthening these buildings. To ensure that none of these undesirable consequences occurs, I urge the Minister to accept the Clause.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Hawkins: I do not intend to repeat the excellent arguments which have been adduced by hon. Members on both sides in favour of the Clause. I should be ashamed not to support this moderate—an unusual epithet to apply to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), whose many speeches I have listened to with delight—proposal.
I am sure that my constituents, coming from an area of many broader acres, would be behind me if I suggested that this load should be spread over the whole country. It was a Norfolk firm which supplied much of the concrete stress materials that went into these high buildings. The firm was encouraged to go in for this type of production, and it put a great deal of development into it. I want to see this type of building succeed.
From the agricultural point of view, high buildings must be the right course for the whole country. In this small island we cannot afford to give more than is vitally necessary for building purposes on good agricultural land. For these practical reasons, apart from the moral issue with which all citizens will agree, the Clause should be accepted.
Certain parts of the country were encouraged to build high because of their housing problems. I had not known much of London before coming to this place. However, a son of mine was at technical college in London and had "digs" in a peculiar part of London, if I may put it that way. I have seen many of the conditions which people must tolerate in crowded boroughs.
During the war the people of London and other cities had a tremendous burden put on them because they suffered the weight of much enemy bombing. This is appreciated by those who did not live in the cities. I certainly appreciate it. The city dwellers were singled out for

that treatment during the war, and now they have been singled out for an experiment which will do the whole country good.
It is an experiment in the true sense of the word because building high does not necessarily result in particularly cheap rents. As this is an experiment which will be good for the whole country, the whole country should share in its cost. I am sure that I shall lose no votes in offering that my constituents should help to share this burden.
In some respects I have the greatest admiration for the Minister of Housing and Local Government. He is a sincere man, although I am not sure that I have the greatest sympathy for him today. He is obviously unhappy about this subject. He has reached a point at which he must stand up and be counted, for we are discussing a subject about which that phrase must apply to every hon. Member. We must decide to tell the Government that this load should be spread over the nation as a whole.

Mr. Wylie: My intervention in this debate will be short, principally for two reasons. First, I think the arguments in favour of this new Clause have been fully canvassed and very ably put forward, no more ably than by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) who moved its Second Reading, and to whose speech I listened with interest. I am sorry that the Minister of State, Scottish Office, who was present a little time ago, was not present when the hon. Member spoke.
The second reason is that this Bill does not apply to Scotland, but I make no apology for making a short intervention on this subject because an important matter of principle arises. The principle is that if the regulations have in the event proved inadequate, financial responsibility for that inadequacy should rest on the central Government. I do not think anyone could deny that. There is a degree of responsibility which the Minister has recognised because he is prepared to pay 40 per cent. I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) said from the Front Bench. If this suggestion had been put forward at the time of the disaster there would have been an almighty row in the country and this


Chamber would have been much more fully occupied than it is at the moment.
The whole issue is what the contribution should be. There is a strong case for the Government accepting the whole responsibility, but the hon. Member for West Ham, North has put forward the very modest suggestion of simply inverting the percentages which the local authority and central Government respectively will bear. The other reason, apart from the question of principle, which induces me to intervene is that this problem is not confined to England and Wales. It applies also to Scotland. It certainly applies in Edinburgh. The Minister of State recognised in earlier legislation—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. It would not be in order to debate the Scottish position on this new Clause.

Mr. Wylie: I quite appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I merely wished to explain why I feel provoked to intervene in a debate on a Bill applying essentially to England and Wales.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance? Would it not be in order if the hon. and learned Member pointed out that, with their usual generosity, the Scots would be more than willing to help pay the cost?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would not be in order for the hon. and learned Member to pursue the matter so far as it relates to Scotland at all.

Mr. Dempsey: Further to that point of order. I do not know whether you are aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Opposition Front Bench spokesman went to considerable length—and we appreciated it—in giving details of how this matter affected Edinburgh and Glasgow.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have given my Ruling. There are occasions when incidental references can be made, and the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) made such a reference, but to debate the Scottish position would be out of order.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I do not wish to challenge your Ruling at all, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that would be quite improper

—but this debate is not directed to a narrow side of the problem. This is the first opportunity, as the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) said, that the House has had to look at this problem as a whole. No doubt the Minister will reply to the debate looking at the problem as it affects the whole of the United Kingdom. I submit to you that it would be in the best interests of the House—and you are protecting the House—if a fairly wide discussion were allowed so that the whole picture could be looked at. I hope my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) will not find himself in too great difficulty with the Chair.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the hon. Member that the discussion has, in fact, been rather wide. I have given my Ruling; so far as the matter affects Scotland, the Scottish position is dealt with in Scottish legislation. The new Clause does not affect Scotland and, therefore, it would be entirely out of order to debate the Scottish position now.

Mr. Wylie: I hope I made clear in my introductory remarks that I did not intend to develop the position in Scotland, because the Bill does not apply to Scotland. I merely wished to point out that this problem covers the whole country. At Sighthill, in my constituency, they are 400 homes short at the moment because of this problem. That is the kind of repercussion which flows from it. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the matter. Perhaps it will strengthen his hand in negotiations with the Treasury if he knows that he has the Scots behind him as well.

Mr. Clegg: I had not intended to take part in this debate, which has reached an exceptionally high standard, but there are some points I wish to make.
The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr Frank Allaun) spoke of the possibility of contributions being made from builders, and the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) suggested that contributions might come from consultant engineers. I should have thought that the local authorities would take legal advice, and, if they were advised that they ought to sue, they should do so, but if they were told that there was no case that would


dispose of the matter completely we should have to fall back on money being provided from the centre.
The effects on the housing position in some areas of the country will be very severe. I do not think the Minister, who is a Lancashire Member needs to be told of the situation in Salford. He is well aware of the consequences which flow from this problem. I add my voice to those who say that this is a national rather than a regional or localised problem. In the North we are dealing with areas which suffered all the scars of the Industrial Revolution and some of the scars of war damage. It is an area which we are trying rapidly to rehabilitate. The emphasis in the region at the moment is on making city centres better and bringing people back to them to give them new life, as was rightly said by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr Booth).
I am worried about the consequences if the Government persist in their attitude. When experimental measures are pursued, local authorities must have confidence that they will not suffer unduly. If local authorities are to support Government experiments, they must be confident that the Government are behind them. I believe that the Minister is under pressure from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
In any event, this money will come from either central or local funds. It is not as if the Government or the taxpayers will be saved something by the Government's attitude. It is a case of the Government at the centre allocating what they will give and what local authorities will give; it is a question of balance. I think that the balance is wrong. The acceptance of the Clause would not cost the public one penny more. For these reasons, I support the Clause.

Mr. George Younger: I strongly support the Clause. I hope that the Minister, for whom we all have great respect, realises what a serious position he is in. He is at loggerheads with the whole House on a matter of principle. The Clause deals with the results of a disaster. All of us will agree that it must be the responsibility of the community at large to do what it can to iron out the painful consequences of a national or great disaster.
Both sides of the House have told the Minister in a reasoned argument that it is not acceptable to the House that the results of this disaster should fall largely on those who have already suffered from it. I widen that area to include all those who live in the area of local authorities which have such flats.
The Minister's inflexibility is bad from his own point of view and from the point of view of Parliament. What are we to think of Parliament if, on a matter like this where no party politics are involved, and when the House expresses a unanimous view, the Minister's response is an inflexible insistence to remain in the position which he had adopted at the beginning of the debate.
I beg the Minister, who is a humane and reasonable man, to understand that he must respond to the views which have been expressed on both sides of the House. I hope that he will regard this as being much more than a set piece debate led by people who are directly concerned. The community should share the cost. As the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) so generously said, taxpayers throughout the country, including those in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, would be only too happy to make their small contribution through the tax system to putting this unfortunate problem right. The cost to local authorities of putting these buildings right will have a major effect on future rating, on future housing policy, and on their ability to carry on with the housing drive.
9.0 p.m.
As a result there arises the whole question of the confidence of the public in these buildings. There is also the confidence of the public in standards prescribed by the Minister for buildings. There are many occasions when building regulations prescribed by the Ministry are a severe irritant to us all. We have all known lots of cases where some modification has to be made to a building because of Ministry regulations. Very often it has not appeared to be reasonable on the surface, but we have taken the view that if it has been prescribed by the Ministry it must have been carefully thought out and we must make the best of it.
If we find that on such a vital matter, Ministry regulations have not been adequate and have not produced safe buildings, then it is bad if the Minister shrugs off responsibility for helping, in a major way, local authorities put this right. It is a matter of great importance that he should remember that his reputation for laying down efficient standards is very much at stake.
The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) made the point about the interest rate. If local authorities have to borrow to make up the balance of the cost which will not be met by the Ministry, and this applies whether or not the new Clause is accepted, the interest rate, in all justice, must be subsidised in exactly the same way as the interest rate is subsidised for the building of the houses in the first place. It would be ridiculous if the cost of repairing the houses has to bear the full interest rate when the original building was subsidised, rightly so, by the central Government. The very least I expect the Minister to be able to say is that the subsidised rate will apply here.
This involves spending a lot of public money, negotiations with the Treasury, and we know how difficult that is. If the Minister takes nothing else on board, everything that has been said must lead him to return to the Treasury and tell it that it is not acceptable to anyone in the House or in the country that the burden of this should fall, as to more than 50 per cent., on the local communities who have to build higher flats. I hope the Minister will take this as being a clear expression of opinion by the House and respond to it in the way I feel he would like to.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I would like to add my few words of sympathy to the Minister for the very difficult position in which he finds himself. What we should try to achieve is not to put the Minister in an entrenched position from which he cannot escape. We do not want to force the issue to the extent that the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) carries this to a Division and the Lobby fodder produced by the Government—who have not heard the debate and perhaps not given it much thought, because if they had they would

think differently—defeats the new Clause and what it involves.
I have not consulted my Front Bench and do not know what they want to do if there is a Division. I feel so strongly about this being a House of Commons matter that I think that what we have to achieve is the best solution for the country. Politics have nothing to do with it. If we can get an undertaking from the right hon. Gentleman that he realises that there is a united view in the House on this matter which is that the Bill is not satisfactory at present and that there is some way to go to meeting the objections of the House, that would be a much happier state of affairs than to have this new Clause defeated by the action of the Government Whips. This is not just another matter for the Government Whips to bring in their hordes and vote us down.
We are trying to look at this on a national basis. I am fortunate in that I have not had a single worried family come to me in Bristol with fears about high buildings. This is encouraging in a sense, because although it may not be involved as other cities are, there are people in the city living in high buildings perhaps not constructed on the same basis as those which caused us so much distress. Although we have had to draw the Minister's attention to the definite fears of many people, it seems there is not widespread public panic and we must do nothing to bring that about.
I have one or two specific technical questions for the Minister. Were the building regulations specific in dealing with this method of building; did they give the technical details as to how the jointings of various units should be carried out? Was there any possibility that regulations could be carried out but that there would still be room for inaccuracy, or were they so watertight that if they had been carried out according to instructions the building would be satisfactory within existing knowledge? The Minister might elaborate more about his high building policy. It was said that it was not Ministry policy to encourage high building unless it was necessary in certain areas.
Following the trouble over this type of high building, I hope that the Minister will not discourage high building in the


future. Once we have it right, surely we should proceed with that type of construction wherever possible.
I did not like what my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester said when he referred to the need for more and more semi-detached houses with gardens. By all means let us have gardens and open spaces, but the idea of the semi-detached sprawl across the countryside is not one that we should entertain in the future. We want a happy balance between low buildings and high ones, but we also want a better use of land than my hon. Friend's words suggest. However, it may be that my hon. Friend merely used the phrase without following it through in detail. Obviously we do not want this sort of sprawl all over the countryside.
I come then to the strengthening techniques. Is the Minister certain that every possible technique has been explored—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate has been very wide, but the hon. Gentleman is making it wider still We are discussing a new Clause which proposes to alter the basis of the percentage payment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will relate his remarks more closely to the Clause.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I had not dwelt upon the proposed percentage because I did not want to detain the House too long. Possibly the percentage is based on an erroneous idea of cost. It occurs to me to ask whether the Ministry has looked into the pros and cons of the different strengthening techniques which might be available, and whether it is sure that those being employed at present are as economical as they might be. After all, our forefathers built three or four times as strong as they need have done. One has only to look at many of our historic buildings to see that. Ronan Point was not built as strong as it should have been. There must be a happy medium, and I wonder whether present strengthening methods are as economical as they might be. Obviously they were thought out in a moment of desperation when matters had to be put right quickly. It is a question of mathematics. It is not one of seeing a thick steel girder running through a building. A very slender one may be equally satisfactory if it is in the right place.
Still on the subject of strengthening, the Minister must be sure at the end of the day that there will be no similar disaster elsewhere; otherwise local authorities might be encouraged to skimp the job of strengthening. The House needs an assurance on that. If the Minister has not the power to make sure that the strengthening is effective, I am certain that the House will be only too willing to give it to him. The work has to be done properly.
I hope that the theme of the Minister's reply will be that he realises the strong feeling of hon. Members about this matter. The present position is not satisfactory financially. It is to be hoped that he will be prepared to look at it again, and no doubt that means having another go at the Treasury. We expect him to say that he will allow nothing to prevent the strengthening of the buildings or, when matters are put right, the construction in the future of any buildings such as those which have caused danger in the past.

Mr. Esmond Wright: In the course of this debate, every argument has been brought forward except one. I share the unanimous concern which is felt, and I hope that that unanimity will be expressed in the Division Lobbies. The note which has been struck is one of morality, responsibility and principle. However, the point which I want to put to the Minister bears on Scotland, though not in the housing context.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) referred to a national disaster. Ronan Point could have hit any part of the Kingdom. Some 18 months ago, a similar disaster hit the central belt of Scotland, its major effects being felt in Glasgow. The Government considered it to be a disaster which could not be met by the local authorities concerned, and a grant of something like £5 million was paid to cope with it.
When the Minister replies, I hope that he will explain the logic of his decision. If it was effective and sound 18 months ago for the hurricane disaster in Scotland, it must be equally binding for Ronan Point and any other areas affected by such a disaster. But there is the additional word "responsibility". The industrial building specifications came from the central Government, whereas


the disaster which hit Scotland came from whatever it is which controls the elements.
Our local authorities are already overburdened. Glasgow for example, has a deficit of more than £300 million. How can the Minister consider it right to expect them to pay these further sums? I believe that he is acting illogically and without the heart and conscience which, deep down, he has in him. I hope that he will tell us in what way the disaster 18 months ago differs from that at Ronan Point.

9.15 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) set an admirable example in brevity. I shall not be able wholly to emulate him, but I shall do my best to be brief and relevant.
The House will realise that this debate has not been a happy Parliamentary experience for me, not because I am unhappy about the proportion of the cost which the Government are meeting, but because the story of Ronan Point has been extremely unhappy and tragic. When the statement was made in the House after the report was published, I went out of my way to accept a measure of Governmental responsibility. Perhaps, looking back, it was rather too big a share of responsibilty, but I was anxious at the time to ensure that injustice was not done to individuals, to firms, to professional men or to the officers of the local authorities which had not the opportunity that I had of making the position clear in the House. I wanted to do everything in my power to restore public confidence in tall blocks of flats.
I begin by echoing what my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) said about the Newham Borough Council. I congratulate the council on the responsibility which it has shown throughout this unhappy story, on its refusal to be panicked, and, perhaps above all, on the very great care which it has taken throughout to take the public into its confidence and to explain why things were being done and what their effects would be. It was an admirable example of public participation and good public relations by a local authority.
We must try to keep a sense of proportion in these matters. There has been a tendency this evening to talk about high blocks of flats being, one might surmise, almost entirely in poor overcrowded areas. But if one looks at the list of areas in which there are tall blocks of flats one finds, or example, Sunbury-on-Thames, Crawley, Weybridge, Elstree and Maidenhead, not one of which is either a poor or overcrowded area. At one time there was a tendency for a good deal of high building to take place which was not strictly necessary in terms of desirable density of the area.
The hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North (Sir E. Bullus) asked what the total cost of strengthening the Ronan Point type of flats was. His speech contrasted very favourably with that of the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi). Having known the hon. and gallant Gentleman for a long time, that is what I would expect of him. The total cost is extremely difficult to estimate. One of our difficulties throughout this last year has been that we have not had any firm estimates from the local authorities about how much will be involved. The best estimate that I can give is £25 or £30 million. Therefore, if we gave the 100 per cent. which the hon. and gallant Gentleman, as Vice-President of the Association of Municipal Corporations, understandably asked for, it would be £25 million, but on the 40 per cent. that we are proposing it would be £10 million met by the Government and £15 million met by the local authorities.
The hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) said that I knew Salford and something of the problems there. That is true. I have paid two official visits to Salford. I was sorry that my hon. Friends representing Salford were not able to be with me on those occasions. Salford is an interesting example in this sphere. Its original estimate of the cost was 1¾ million, which was later reduced to about £1 million. With such a variation in estimates, it is difficult to know exactly how much will be finally involved.
I turn to the question of pushing high-rise buildings. The hon. Member for Hornsey made a great point of this. We put into our letters to the local authority associations a statement of our policy concerning high building because there had been a good deal of misunderstanding


about it and because when I met the local authority associations at the end of May or the beginning of June they talked about having been pressurised by the Ministry into building high.
I do not think that that has ever been the policy of either the previous Government or the present Government. Both Administrations have always realised that there were cases where high-rise building was inevitable, but we have said that there must be high-rise building only where it is necessary on density grounds and that generally speaking, for a variety of reasons, both of economy and of sociological reasons, high-rise building was not to be encouraged.
It is interesting that it was Lord Brooke, I think, at the time he was Minister of Housing and Local Government, who emphasised in the publication to which the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) has referred the need for avoiding high-rise building where it was not absolutely necessary. We as a Government have consistently pursued that policy.
When people talk about an industrialised building drive, they are absolutely right. We have said that we wanted 40 per cent. of the building in the public sector to be done by industrialised building methods, including rationalised traditional methods. Industrialised building, however, does not necessarily involve high-rise building. At the moment we are getting 40 per cent. of the building in the public sector done by industrialised building methods. I do not think that anyone would suggest that 40 per cent. of the public housing which is going up today consists of high-rise flats.
We have on a number of occasions issued circulars in which we have referred to the fact that industrialised building includes fully rationalised traditional methods and also that it includes work on low-rise building as well. In circular 21/65, for example, we said:
The main need now is to create conditions for a rapid development in the use of these methods"—
that is industrialised building—
for both two and three storey houses and low and medium rise flats.
We have not, therefore, pressurised local authorities into building high, although they have freedom of choice, and in some

cases it has been necessary for good reasons to build high. That is why we have suggested what, I believe, is a fair share of responsibility for the cost involved.
We have been criticised tonight for proposing to meet 40 per cent. of the cost, and I have been asked how we arrived at that figure. I think that the figure of 100 per cent. is wholly unrealistic. I do not believe that any of the local authority associations seriously expected that 100 per cent. would be forthcoming. I believe that 40 per cent. is a reasonable proportion. The tribunal said that there was a division of responsibility between central and local Government and the builders and others concerned.
The figure of 40 per cent. was decided upon because it corresponds to the subsidy which is paid to local authority building. The average subsidy this year is running at about 39 per cent. When the representative rate of interest for 1969 is fixed, which will probably be in July, the proportion paid by the Exchequer will be just over 40 per cent. That means that we are proposing to pay as a contribution to the post-Ronan Point work the same proportion as the State is paying for the original buildings. The proportion of the contribution for Ronan Point under the new rate of subsidy is much higher than the proportion which would have been contributed under the original subsidy.

Mr. Peter Walker: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he has chosen the coincidence of the housing subsidy rate and has not taken into consideration the proportion of the blame and the adverse effects on some local authorities? Is he saying that he just picked the figure of 40 per cent.?

Mr. Greenwood: It is only fair that, having as a Government and as a country made a contribution to the capital cost of these buildings of a certain percentage, we should pay approximately the same proportion of the cost of rectifying what is wrong with the buildings. That is the decision which the Government took, and I think that it is a fair division.
We have suggested that, if the local authority associations wish, we would be prepared to discuss with them arrangements for a flat rate for all authorities and an extra rate for some, but we do


not believe that we should go ahead with that unless it is the general wish of the local authorities.
There is room for discussion between the associations and ourselves about the items of expenditure which should be eligible for help. We would like to include carpets, the costs of removal and other incidental but essential expenses of that nature.
The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) asked about building regulations. He was going a little wide of the rather limited new Clause, but it is not without interest that Ronan Point was built under the old bye-laws of the West Ham Borough and not under the building regulations. Since then building regulations have been centralised. We are working on a new set of building regulations which will be published this year. In the meantime, we have given guidance to local authorities on the standard of safety to which they should work. Distinguished structural engineers are always prepared to advise local authorities to make sure that the work they are doing is adequate and, at the same time, the most economic to meet the needs of the building with which they are concerned.
I cannot concede the point that the 40 per cent. should be increased. I think it is a fair and reasonable proportion of the cost, and I must ask my hon. Friends to vote against the new Clause.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have three interventions at the same time. The right hon. Gentleman will decide who intervenes before he sits down.

Mr. Peter Walker: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question about the interest rate on loans?

Mr. Greenwood: Yes. The local authority would pay the normal interest rate that it pays on its loans. That is proper, because otherwise there would be a subsidy in addition to the 40 per cent. contribution.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I do not think that anyone in the House, particularly those who have been here throughout the debate, will be satisfied or convinced by

the Minister's arguments. He put his arguments quietly, but he did so only because there was not very great strength behind them.
The outstanding feature of the debate has been the strength of feeling about the special nature of the problem which we are discussing. We are not discussing how to increase the rate of house building, or the rate of house improvement; we are discussing a special problem which is based on a disaster which took place more than a year ago, and we are taking this out of the context of our normal type of housing debate. The way in which the Minister has couched his remarks suggests that he has entirely failed to understand or to realise the special nature of the problem which we are discussing.
It gives me great pleasure to wind up the discussion on the Clause from this side of the House. I know that I speak with the strength of feeling which has characterised our speeches, not on a political basis, but on the basis of united views which are strongly held on both sides of the House, regardless of party, in strongly deploring the way in which the Government have dealt with this matter.
9.30 p.m.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) has said, how much greater the strength of feeling might have been had we known when the Ronan Point disaster was still fresh in our minds how little the Government would offer to put right structural defects in the buildings. Concern about this matter is felt throughout the whole country, not only in England and Wales, not only in towns with high rise flats, but in Scotland, too.
I am glad to have the opportunity of speaking this evening since this is the first real opportunity we have had to debate what the Government are offering. I know that I speak for my hon. Friends from Scotland in saying that we are glad to take part in this debate because we are concerned that if the principle of the Clause is rejected local authorities in Scotland will be put in a difficulty in their negotiations with the Government.
The size of the problem in Scotland and the strength of feeling there will be realised when one remembers that the Minister of State, Scottish Office, in answer to


a Question last week, said that in Scotland there were 170 blocks of flats, 12,000 units affecting 18 local authorities, with this particular problem. We in Scotland also have a concentration of this problem in particular areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) mentioned that the problem in his area amounted to a figure of £1·4 million, and there the problem is greatest of all.
In asking that the Government contribution should be increased from 40 to 60 per cent., we are in no way asking that expenditure should be increased beyond what is required. The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) made a strong point about the job which must be carried out for the safety and security of these block of flats. We are not even asking for additional or extra expenditure, for, if sufficient help is not forthcoming the local authorities perhaps will hold back in carrying this work forward, work which it is vitally necessary should be carried out as quickly as possible.
The basic question to be faced is who is to bear the cost, and there is then the question of responsibility. I was impressed by the logical argument, although the Minister did not appear to have been impressed by it, of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) as to where lay the real responsibility. Let us remember that the local authorities, the consulting engineers employed by them, and the building firms involved worked to specifications in accordance with building regulations approved by the Government. It is quite clear to us where the responsibility really lies.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that in Scotland it is the National Building Agency, rather than the Minister, that lays down the building rules for the construction of these buildings? Surely it has some financial responsibility in the matter.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: With respect, at the end of the day it is the Minister who vets these building regulations, it is the local authority which draws up the specifications, and the building firms have to comply with the specifications that they are given. It is clear where the responsibility lies.
Therefore, we come back to the question about how the actual expense is to be shared. We believe that the responsibility should be shared nationally rather than borne locally. The incidence of high flats, as was said by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), is not necessarily the choice of the local authority concerned. Often it is the chance of its geographical location, the chance of what land is available, and the chance of the history of housing over previous generations which determines whether they are forced to go in for high rise housing. This underlines the fact that this is not just the responsibility of the individual local authority. It may not be the local authority's choice. In many cases local authorities have been forced into doing this. For that reason, the financial responsibility should be borne much wider—and, of course, it should be done through the Government.
The Minister completely failed to answer the question put to him quite bluntly by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester out of what account is this cost to be borne by the local authority? This is important. Even if we accept that the local authority will have to bear a fairly high proportion of the cost, from where will it come? Will it come from the housing account? If so, as has been said by many hon. Members, the tenants will suffer. Yet this happens at a time when the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Scotland are sending round circulars instructing local authorities to try to reduce the deficit on their housing accounts. Therefore, on the one hand, they put this higher burden on the local authorities, which they cannot avoid in the interests of the safety and security of their tenants, and, on the other hand, they tell them to try to reduce the deficit on their housing accounts. By bearing such a small share of the expenditure of putting right the structural faults in high rise housing, the Minister is being unfair to the tenants and ratepayers of the local authorities concerned.
I should like to refer to the analogy of my hon. Friend the Member for Pollak. We do not look at this question just within the context of ordinary housing problems. This is an issue of a special nature. When we had the storm damage in Scotland 18 months


ago the Government treated it as a national disaster. For heaven's sake, let us be thankful in this instance that we have not had a bigger national disaster. Surely, money is much better spent preventing a bigger national disaster happening than waiting to spend the money after it has happened. The Government have entirely failed to understand this point. They met a large proportion of the expenditure that was made necessary by the hurricane damage in Scotland, but in this case they are bearing a very small proportion indeed.
I do not believe that anyone in this House, and certainly nobody outside in the local authority areas most concerned, will be in any way convinced by the arguments put forward by the Minister this evening.
Concerning interest rates, for example, the local authorities are blithely told that they will have to borrow at 9¾ per cent. to bear their share. Is this to be borne by the tenants and the ratepayers? This is the burden which the Government are throwing on to the people of this country. The right hon. Gentleman relates this percentage of Government help that is to be given to the level of the housing subsidies. I think that that indicates what little importance he lays on this problem and how little he understands it.
I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has failed utterly to understatnd the scale of the problem. He says that what he is doing is fair. I am utterly appalled at the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has tried to play down this whole matter and not treat it with the seriousness that it deserves. I give the hon. Member for West Ham, North my support, and I am sure that I pledge the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends for the Clause. We shall carry our support into the Division Lobby to show how unfairly and meanly we think the Minister has behaved.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I feel very sad this evening because of what I regard as a deplorable reply from the Minister. I also feel very bitter indeed. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for having been here and listened to the whole debate, as most of us have. If my right hon. Friend, having listened to the debate, had said that he realised that not one hon. Member on either side had said one word

on behalf of the Government, or the Treasury, or in support of himself, and therefore he would consider this again, that would have been one thing. I do not know why my right hon. Friend is smiling. Not one hon. Member had one good word to say—

Mr. Greenwood: I was not smiling at my hon. Friend.

Mr. Lewis: It is not a smiling matter. We are debating a serious issue. My right hon. Friend is still smiling. I hope that he will not go to my constituency and smile at the poor devils there. This was a tragedy. The Treasury is the nigger in the woodpile.
The Minister has not said that he will reconsider this. He has said that what he has done is very fair. Is it very fair? How can he think of saddling the poorest of the poor—because in the main these are people from slum areas—with this extra burden? The people who have been rehoused in these tower blocks have suffered tragedy enough by losing their loved ones, and now the Minister comes along and says, "I shall give 40 per cent. towards the cost and they must find 60 per cent." These are the people who will have to find the 60 per cent. I am not concerned whether the money comes out of the housing revenue account or out of the rates or rents, or from a mixture of the two. It is the local inhabitants who will pay.
In answer to a question which I asked, my right hon. Friend said
… it would be quite wrong for undue expense to fall upon individuals affected by this occurrence"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th November 1968 Vol. 772, col. 907.]
Is not this an unfair burden? Is it not falling on the individuals affected by this disaster? My right hon. Friend is wrong to try to lump this in with a 40 per cent. housing subsidy.
The Minister said this evening that ratepayers or council tenants, or both, will be saddled with a debt of between £15 million and £18 million, and that they can borrow this money. My council already has an outstanding loan charge of £87 million. How can my right hon. Friend suggest that his is a fair approach? The Minister made no mention of the difficult areas. He referred to Sunbury and Teddington, but not to those areas which are really affected. I


am disgusted with the Minister. This was a national disaster and the Government accepted it as such. Having waited twelve months, they have run away from it. I am not running away from it. I will vote against the Government on this. I will stand proudly anywhere in the country and say that I am disgusted with the answer which we have been given this evening.

9.45 p.m.

Sir D. Glover: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is the seventh of 43 debates which we will have tonight. I hope that we can come to a decision soon.

Sir D. Glover: I accept your instructions, Mr. Speaker, that this is the seventh of 43 debates, but it is a debate which the House should carry to its conclusion. This is not just a simple Clause in a Housing Bill. The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) should be congratulated on his new Clause. The Minister's reply was one of the most dreadful and unsatisfactory replies which the House has heard in a long time. What astonishes me about the House is how Governments—I include Tory Governments—can be so mean. A disaster of this sort appeals to the sympathy of the whole country, yet the Government suddenly decide something which receives hardly any sympathy in the House.
I hate attacking the Minister, because I like him as much as any member of the Cabinet, but the real answer is that, although he is a very charming person, he is also a very weak person, and he has not fought this battle in the Cabinet and won. Knowing his humanity, I am sure that he told the Cabinet originally, "We must be generous over this problem". Then the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary probably said, "We do not have the money in this stringent financial situation; you had better settle for this much," upon which, I suppose, the right hon. Gentleman said. "All right, if I keep my job, I will settle for 40 per cent."
It is appalling that we should deal with this problem in this way. If these buildings have been built contrary to Government advice, I would expect the local authorities to take complete responsibility for any cost, but they were built

with very little knowledge and because they were a new development, their specifications were pretty well laid down by the Government of the day. Now, fortuitously, and through great tragedy to many families, it has been discovered that there is a fault in the construction. The nation should pray that Ronan Point will be the only tragedy of this kind. We could, months ago, have been debating the collapse of not one building but fifty, because the fault at Ronan Point was basic in these high rise buildings.
That disaster would have wrung the withers of every person in the country. If that had happened, there would have been no argument. The nation would have said that it had to be put right and would have paid the cost through taxation. But it was only one building and the Government are saying, "We know that these buildings must be put right, but there has been no tragedy in Glasgow or Salford". But the reason that that building collapsed was that the instructions and the specifications were wrong. We did not know it at the time and there is no criticism on the builder, architect, local authority or anybody else. It was, one might say, an act of God.
As a result of this occurrence the Government said that these high rise buildings must be put right to their specifications. Why, in these circumstances, should we try to link the cost, this mythical figure for subsidy purposes, to some sort of building project? What relationship, in commonsense and humanity, is involved in such an equation? It is nothing but a sort of abracadabra worked out in the Ministry, with somebody finally saying, "This might get through Parliament without too much of a row".
We had a tragedy and that led to a problem having to be solved. I accept that local authorities must incur expenditure as a result of their activities. If we are to have responsible local government, local authorities must bear responsibilities and be careful with their spending. However, to say that 40 per cent. is the right amount for the Government to pay in this instance is scandalously inadequate. Indeed, it is so inadequate that if the right hon. Gentleman had the courage of his convictions he would not—I say this because I am sure that he was defeated in the Cabinet—be trying to justify himself in this matter but would have


resigned in disgust at the Cabinet's decision.
We are dealing with a human problem involving justice following an occurrence which nobody could foretell. The debate has crossed party boundaries. This has nothing to do with party ideologies. I

hope, therefore, that hon. Members will vote according to their consciences and not according to party labels.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 131, Noes 164.

Division No. 274.]
AYES
[9.59 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Grieve, Percy
Nott, John


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Onslow, Cranley


Awdry, Daniel
Hastings, Stephen
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Hawkins, Paul
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Barter, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Heseltine, Michael
Pardoe, John


Bell, Ronald
Higgins, Terence L.
Percival, Ian


Biffen, John
Hill, J. E. B.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Black, Sir Cyril
Holland, Philip
Pink, R. Bonner


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Hooson, Emlyn
Pounder, Rafton


Braine, Bernard
Hordern, Peter
Pym, Francis


Brewis, John
Hornby, Richard
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hunt, John
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Iremonger, T. L.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Burden, F. A.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Speed, Keith


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Stainton, Keith


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Carlisle, Mark
Jopling, Michael
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Clegg, Walter
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Cooke, Robert
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Temple, John M.


Corfield, F. V.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Costain, A. P.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Tilney, John


Crouch, David
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lubbock, Eric
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Currie, G. B. H.
MacArthur, Ian
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Waddington, David


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
McMaster, Stanley
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Maddan, Martin
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maude, Angus
Wiggin, A. W.


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Mawby, Bay
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Errington, Sir Eric
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Eyre, Reginald
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Farr, John
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Montgomery, Fergus
Wright, Esmond


Fortescue, Tim
More, Jasper
Wylie, N. R.


Foster, Sir John
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Younger, Hn. George


Gibson-Watt, David
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.



Glover, Sir Douglas
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Cower, Raymond
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Mr. Hector Monro and


Grant, Anthony
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
English, Michael


Anderson, Donald
Cant, R. B.
Ensor, David


Archer, Peter
Concannon, J. D.
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Crawshaw, Richard
Fernyhough, E.


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Dalyell, Tam
Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Barnett, Joel
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Ford, Ben


Bishop, E. S.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Forrester, John


Blackburn, F.
Delargy, Hugh
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dell, Edmund
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Dewar, Donald
Gregory, Arnold


Boyden, James
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Bradley, Tom
Dickens, James
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Doig, Peter
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Brooks, Edwin
Dunn, James A.
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Dunnett, Jack
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hannan, William


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Ellis, John
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)




Haseldine, Norman
MacPherson, Malcolm
Probert, Arthur


Hazell, Bert
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Rankin, John


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Rees, Merlyn


Hooley, Frank
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Horner, John
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E)
Manuel, Archie
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Mapp, Charles
Sheldon, Robert


Huckfield, Leslie
Marks, Kenneth
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Marquand, David
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Skeffington, Arthur


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Slater, Joseph


Hynd, John
Millan, Bruce
Snow, Julian



Miller, Dr. M. S.
Spriggs, Leslie


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Janner, Sir Barnett
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)



Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Symonds, J. B.


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Taverne, Dick


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Neal, Harold
Tinn, James


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Newens, Stan
Urwin, T. W.


Judd, Frank
Norwood, Christopher
Varley, Eric G.


Kelley, Richard
Ogden, Eric
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Kenyon, Clifford
O'Malley, Brian
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lawson, George
Orbach, Maurice
Wallace, George


Leadbitter, Ted
Oswald, Thomas
Watkins, David (Consett)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)
Palmer, Arthur
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Loughlin, Charles
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Park, Trevor
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


McCann, John
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


McColl, James
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Woof, Robert


Macdonald, A. H.
Pentland, Norman



McGuire, Michael
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Mackintosh, John P.
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Mr. Joseph Harper.


McNamara, J. Kevin
Price, William (Rugby)

It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Housing Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Greenwood.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 1

IMPROVEMENT GRANTS, STANDARD GRANTS AND SPECIAL GRANTS

Mr. Clegg: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 18, at end insert:
(3) The Minister shall lay before Parliament from time to time the draft of a booklet to be entitled House Improvements Code which shall contain, in summarised form, the statutory provisions and the current Ministerial orders, directions and advice concerning the said grants and the works in respect of which they may be made; and if each House of Parliament shall by resolution approve that draft the Minister shall, through the agency of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, publish the booklet in such quantity as may be requisite for informing all persons who may be interested therein provided that nothing contained in the said booklet which has not otherwise the force of law shall not gain the force of law solely by its inclusion in the said booklet.
We have just listened to a debate on a matter of great principle. We are now

coming to the more bread-and-butter parts of the Bill and the details of its working. This Amendment is designed to achieve what we have tried more than once in Committee and this afternoon in the House to achieve. That is to make as clear as possible to all concerned what their rights are under the Bill and what help is available to them. We want them to have the best advice. We have tried many times to get this principle of informing the public enshrined in the Bill and given statutory authority. This is one more attempt.
We have adopted a similar system to that concerned with road traffic. The Highway Code is well known and here we suggest a house improvements code. It would be more than a pamphlet, an authoritative document which would have the sanction of a Statute behind it. It would be a document required by Statute to be published. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are too many informal debates at the moment.

Mr. Clegg: The Amendment lays down the matters which the new house improvements code shall contain. They would be
statutory provisions and the current Ministerial orders, directions and advice concerning the said grants and the works in respect of which they may be made".


Parliament would have the advantage of seeing the code before it went to the general public. In the past Government literature which has not been subject to the scrutiny of the House has sometimes misled. I refer in particular to the option mortgage scheme.
We want the new code to be in the hands of all those connected with the administration of grants—local authorities; I hope rent officers, because the Government acknowledge that they have a real interest in these problems: builders; and so on. If the Amendment were accepted, Parliament would show that it cares about people being told in the clearest possible way what their rights are.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that this is the eighth of 43 Amendments.

Mr. Maddan: It is, nevertheless, an important Amendment. The first thing to be borne in mind is the enormously complicated nature of the various provisions of grants which are available, the many sources from which details of them can be gleaned, and the many ways in which they are administered. This is a subject which it is difficult for the ordinary citizen to understand and a headache for professional men such as surveyors and solicitors.
The second thing to be borne in mind is, as the Minister said on Second Reading summarising various surveys that had been made, that the proportion
of individual landlords owning one rented dwelling
is
between 61 per cent. and 78 per cent. of all landlords."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February, 1969; Vol. 777, c. 973.]
Those who will have to act upon the provisions of the Bill are not, in the main, large property companies with professional staffs to devil and beaver away and familiarise themselves with all the sources and even understand them correctly. The success of the operation will depend on our having to deal with individual landlords.
It is essential that a simplified code should be prepared, not a hand-out prepared in the Ministry and published by

the Stationery Office at, say, 2s., but a document which has been scrutinised by both Houses of Parliament. The interpretation of these provisions to a whole range of local authorities leads to a position in which Whitehall does not always know best.
The reason why we are to have 43 more Amendments on Report is that hon. Members very often know more about circumstances on the ground and have something to say that is more useful and constructive—and I hope that that includes what I am saying now—than the gentlemen in Whitehall, who normally prepare the booklets.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I have no wish unduly to prolong the discussion, but there is a very important thought behind the Amendment. The House is entitled to what time it needs for this important matter. I have pursued the same thoughts as my hon. Friend on a number of occasions with a number of Ministers. I am as anxious as he that the best possible use should be made of our older buildings, not just through the conservation of museums, but for housing people. The Amendment is directed to that very problem—so that people seeking to make improvements, on the whole to older buildings, should have available in a readily accessible form all the help and information that they can possibly need.
What was said about Whitehall not always knowing best was surely to the point. There is a wealth of knowledge in this House which can be brought to bear on this matter if the Amendment is accepted. I remember on one occasion tangling with a Minister in this Government on the subject of building regulations to do with historic buildings. I got out of that Minister, now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, that the local authorities have the power on any occasion they wish to waive building regulations as they apply to a listed building if they see fit because the regulations could not be so applied without severely damaging the building. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) has had experience of this. He was asked to do something impossible about a listed building which he got round only after much tribulation. If this Amendment was accepted and a booklet was produced every local authority could benefit.
There is so much work done in the name of improvement to our older buildings which is bad, sometimes dangerous and often irreparably damaging to their structure which would not happen if those concerned had a little more information. They could get this if the Amendment was accepted.
A house improvement code could easily cover the sources of finance available. There is money available under the Housing Acts, there is the Historic Buildings Council for rather grand buildings, and there are loans which can be obtained. Local authorities are empowered to help, and I hope that this will be covered by the booklet.
I hope that no one disagrees about this. If they do it is obviously a matter for debate, and it is right that my hon. Friend should have introduced this particular Amendment. I hope that as a result of exploring this matter we shall get from the Government a firm assurance that they will do everything they can to make available to those seeking to improve older property every kind of information to help them with the structural work, where they can get advice, perhaps even where they can obtain suitable materials, because these are not always easy to get. I trust that it will also cover finance, which is a central feature of these improvements.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Allason: The House will agree that the Bill does not meet the high standard of obscurity which the Government have set with many previous Bills. It is nevertheless a difficult Bill which has to be understood by more than a million people. Many constituents will come to us for explanations about its intentions. Although we have laboured for a long time in Committee to improve it, and although improvements will be made tonight, it is still difficult to understand.
It is therefore essential that there should be a pamphlet which puts into simple, non-legal language the intentions of the Bill. I draw attention to the last three lines of the Amendment, which read:
… provided that nothing contained in the said booklet which has not otherwise the force of law shall not gain the force of law solely by its inclusion in the said booklet".
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) says that we

do not want the booklet to create further law, but we do hope that the booklet will explain the present law.
There was a signal failure to do this over the Rent Act. A booklet was produced called "The Rent Act and You". I had to draw to the Ministry's attention the fact that it was highly misleading and that people were led, by reading what was said in it with a certain amount of solemnity, into thinking something was the law when that was not the case.
It is important not only that should there not be statements tending to make fresh law but also that there should be a clear explanation of the present law.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Would my hon. Friend agree that the booklet should contain in every relevant place cases where the local authority, or whoever enforces the regulations, has discretion to waive regulations in favour of the public?

Mr. Allason: That makes a very important additional point. We know that the booklet is to be published. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that he can meet our requirement that it should be presented to Parliament first so that we can study it.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ifor Davies): I am attracted by some of the persuasive arguments which have been advanced, but that does not mean that I am convinced by them. There is no difference of opinion about the extreme importance of getting across the information about the grants enumerated in the Clause. I agree with the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), who said earlier that the whole basis of this Bill is to get it across and sell it.
The hon. Gentleman also referred earlier to his increased responsibility, and I am sure that we all congratulate him and that he will carry it out with the same distinction as he does his duties on the benches opposite.
This is a matter not of what information should be given but of how far it should go. The hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) talked about statutory authority being enshrined in the Bill, and the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) referred to the difficulties of ordinary people in ascertaining the facts. I hope


that I can prove that what the Government propose meets these requirements.
It is important for hon. Members to have clear in their minds what the Amendment asks. It asks the Minister to publish a booklet summarising the statutory provisions, orders, directions and advice about improvement, standard and special grants. A draft of the booklet would first have been approved by Parliament.
The Amendment is misconceived. Parliament has placed the day-to-day administration of the grants scheme upon the local authorities. Administrative guidance in this respect is necessarily of a general nature, and it must be left to the local authorities to apply the grants system to individual cases in their areas. An applicant who went to his town hall armed with an official house improvement code would soon find that he had only part of the story.
It would be pointless for Parliament once having given discretion to the Minister to make directions and specify standards by circular, to seek to approve or disapprove them together with any administrative guidance given by the Minister when the draft of the official code was submitted for approval. Similarly, it would be wrong for Parliament to attempt to influence by this means the way in which the local authorities exercised their statutory discretion. Time after time we pay tribute to the way in which the local authorities carry out their duties. We must also have a certain amount of confidence in them.
What has happened in the past and what is intended for the future is that the Ministry publishes a booklet setting out the main features of the grants scheme and directing prospective grant applicants to their local council offices for more detailed information. The most effective way of conveying advice to ordinary people is by personal consultation at local council offices. A growing number of local authorities supplement the Ministry booklet by their own publications showing how the scheme is administered locally. But, in the final event, the applicant can find out the local authority's likely attitude to his own scheme only by discussing it with the appropriate local authority officer.
The Minister is already accountable to Parliament for his actions in a number of ways, as respects both general policy and administration and in respect of particular decisions. There is no question of his trying to evade his duties and responsibilities.
I hope that I have satisfied hon. Members that the Amendment would produce an unnecessary and rigid duty which is less preferable than the present system.

Mr. Graham Page: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for his kind personal words and for agreeing with us about the general principle of the objective that we seek in the Amendment.
I do not think that the Government can complain that in any of the debates on the Bill there has been obstruction of Government policy. We have tried to help all that we can and suggest ways in which Government policy can be put over to the public. We recognise that there has been a failure in this in the past.
In this case, where it has failed is that there was first a rather inadequate booklet to the public, a sort of "Kiddies' Guide to 'Granty-Panties'", which was not of much value to those seeking solid information about how to get grants and carry out the work. Then there was a handbook which went out of date. One could not obtain it in order to understand the basis on which the local authorities were working. The real meat seems to have gone into Ministry circulars.
I am one of those who are wholly opposed to government by circulars. What the Under-Secretary of State said about fettering the discretion of local authorities applies to Ministry circulars which fetter their discretion in administering discretionary grants. An applicant finds his application is rejected for some reason which is stated with all the force of law. If he has the courage to question it he is solemnly referred to circular something or other stroke something or other which the local authority takes as law. It is merely a direction from the Minister to the local authority of which members of the public know nothing until they have the courage to inquire.
I should like to see all this done above board and these directives not only made known to the public but vetted by the House first. If local authorities are given


directions by the Minister about how they should exercise a discretion which they should exercise for the benefit of the public, the House should know about it. What would be better than to adopt the Highway Code idea, which has gone down very well in another context? Why not lay an authoritative document before the House? The fact that the House debates it gives it publicity, but, more than that, one gathers from a debate of that sort a great deal of practical knowledge from right hon. and hon. Members who have had to deal with local government matters in their constituencies.
This idea may be a little strange in this connection, but we want something dynamic to encourage grants, to get people to know what they are and how to take them up. Only by a gimmick of this sort shall we do it. We shall not do it through the sort of gimmick in the advertisement in the newspapers yesterday with a score of pictures of rent officers. That was the wrong way to put over a serious matter. We should deal with it seriously through an authoritative document approved by Parliament.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I feel that too often what we do in the House is not properly

understood, when it becomes law, by the people for whom we are legislating. Surely a booklet such as has been suggested would be an opportunity to turn a very important Bill into something which anybody could understand.

I follow what the Minister says about the discretionary powers of local authorities, but if we dodge the issue by not setting down clearly what the House has decided and what has become law we do not assist the people for whom we are legislating. Too often it seems that the House does not know enough about public relations. Too often our work is clothed in dry legalistic phraseology which means very little to those for whom we are legislating.

I therefore hope that the Government will consider very carefully producing a booklet written in a way which ordinary people can understand, and that, having produced it, they will not leave it at that but will ensure that it is widely available and is known to be widely available.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 116, Noes 170.

Division No. 275.]
AYES
[10.28 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gower, Raymond
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempetead)
Grant, Anthony
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Awary, Daniel
Grieve, Percy
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Nott, John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hastings, Stephen
Onslow, Granley


Bell, Ronald
Hawkins, Paul
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Biffen, John
Heseltine, Michael
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Black, Sir Cyril
Higgins, Terence L.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Hill, J. E. B.
Percival, Ian


Braine, Bernard
Holland, Philip
Pink, R. Bonner


Brewis, John
Hordern, Peter
Pounder, Rafton


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hornby, Richard



Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hunt, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Prior, J. M. L.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Iremonger, T. L.
Pym, Francis


Burden, F. A.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Carlisle, Mark
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jopling, Michael
Russell, Sir Ronald


Clegg, Walter
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Cooke, Robert
Kaberry, 8ir Donald
Silvester, Frederick


Corfield, F. V.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, s.)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Costain, A. P.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Speed, Keith


Crouch, David
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stainton, Keith


Cunningham, Sir Knox
MacArthur, Ian
Stodart, Anthony


Currie, G. B. H.
McMaster, Stanley
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
MoNair-Wilson, Michael
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Maddan, Martin
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Maude, Angus
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maxwell, Hyslop, R. J.
Tilney, John


Errington, Sir Eric
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Eyre, Reginald
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Farr, John
Monro, Hector
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Fortescue, Tim
Montgomery, Fergus
Waddington, David


Foster, Sir John
More, Jasper
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wells, John (Maidstone)




Wiggin, A. W.
Wright, Esmond
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Wylie, N. R.
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Younger, Hn. Ceorge
Mr. Bernard Weatherill


Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick






NOES


Abse, Leo
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morgan, Etystan (Cardiganshire)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Anderson, Donald
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Armstrong, Ernest
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Neal, Harold


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Hannan, William
Newens, Stan


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Harper, Joseph
Norwood, Christopher


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Ogden, Eric


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Haseldine, Norman
O'Malley, Brian


Barnett, Joel
Hazell, Bert
Oram, Albert E.


Bidwell, Sydney
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Orbach, Maurice


Bishop, E. S.
Hooley, Frank
Orme, Stanley


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hooson, Emlyn
Oswald, Thomas


Booth, Albert
Horner, John
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Boyden, James
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)



Bradley, Tom
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Palmer, Arthur


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Huckfield, Leslie
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Brooks, Edwin
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pardoe, John


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Park, Trevor


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Brown, Bob (N'ctle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hynd, John
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pentland, Norman


Cant, R. B.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Dalyell, Tam
Judd, Frank
Price, William (Rugby)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Kenyon, Clifford
Probert, Arthur


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Rees, Merlyn


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Richard, Ivor


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Lawson, George
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Leadbitter, Ted
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Delargy, Hugh
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Dell, Edmund
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Dempsey, James
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Sheldon, Robert


Dewar, Donald
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silverman, Julius


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Loughlin, Charles
Skeffington, Arthur


Dickens, James
Lubbock, Eric
Slater, Joseph


Doig, Peter
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Spriggs, Leslie


Dunn, James A.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Dunnett, Jack
McCann, John
Taverne, Dick


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
MacColl, James
Tinn, James


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Macdonald, A. H.
Urwin, T. W.


Ellis, John
McGuire, Michael
Varley, Eric G.


English, Michael
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Enser, David
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mackintosh, John P.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wallace, George


Fernyhough, E.
MacPherson, Malcolm
Watkins, David (Consett)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Wellbeloved, James


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Ford, Ben
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Forrester, John
Manuel, Archie
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Gardner, Tony
Mapp, Charles
Woof, Robert


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Marks, Kenneth



Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Marquand, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gregory, Arnold
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Dr. M. S. Miller and


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Millan, Bruce
Mr. Ernest G. Perry.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Clause 2

IMPROVEMENT GRANTS

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 3, line 10, leave out from first 'a' to second 'of' in line 11 and insert term of years absolute'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment it would be convenient to take Amendments Nos. 21, 25 and 115.

Mr. Skeffington: The effect of the Amendments is to extend the qualifying interest for all the types of grant included in the Bill to some of those who might under the original terms of the Bill have been excluded.
I gave an undertaking to consider this as a result of observations by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) to the effect that a number of 21-year leases had been granted after the 1965 Rent Act and before the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 at rack rents, where the landlord would hardly be likely to want to undertake improvements but the tenant might want to do so.
As the Bill was originally drafted, the benefit was secured only by those who had a freehold interest or who had a tenancy at a low rent within the meaning of the Rent Act 1968. I undertook to look at the evidence, and it is clear that, particularly since 1965, a number of tenancies may have been granted at a whole range of rents from slightly above ground rents right up to a full rent. It is right to take the opportunity to make the basis for grant the substantial interest of the person applying for the grant in the property, rather than the very much narrower point as to whether or not he is paying a ground rent or rack rent.
I feel that the Amendment will meet many of the cases which the hon. Member for Crosby had in mind. It does not go so far as to include the mortgagee in possession, but it will go so far as to include the mortgagee by demise. He will be within the terms of the Amendment, having a term of years absolute, and that brings him in, but it does not bring in the mortgagee in possession. The Amendment is a welcome extension, and I hope the House will accept it.

Mr. Graham Page: I am obliged to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for introducing the Amendment. In one respect it goes even further than I had hoped. It does not restrict those who can apply for a grant to the owner of a freehold or to the owner of a ground lease. As a result of the Amendment, an ordinary tenant who pays rack rent, or whatever it may be, will be able to apply for a grant if he can show that he is left with five years of his lease.
I was a little worried when the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that a mortgagee by demise would also come under the Amendment and would be able to apply for a grant. If that is the case, it will complicate matters a little. When a mortgage is going through quite smoothly, a mortgagee could step in and apply for a grant over the heads of a person occupying or owning a house. It would make an extraordinary distinction between a mortgagee by demise and a legal charge. It is a matter of the form of the mortgage; some are governed by legal charge, others by demise.
If the Amendment includes a mortgagee by demise, whether or not the mortgagee is in possession, I am not sure that we ought not to restrict the Amendment and not include him, otherwise there will be all sorts of complications. But if the Amendment merely means that a tenant with five years of his lease to run can apply for a grant, I welcome it.

Amendment agreed to.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Clegg: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in line 13, at end add:
'or he is a mortgagee in possession'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment, it will be convenient to take Amendments No. 22, in Clause 8, page 6, line 5, at end add:
'or he is a mortgagee in possession'.
and No. 26, in Clause 17, page 11, line 10, at end add:
'or he is a mortgagee in possession'.

Mr. Clegg: The reason why we put down this interesting Amendment is that during discussion in Committee the Joint Parliamentary Secretary promised to look again at this matter. I am not entirely clear how far this Amendment has been affected by the explanation that we have


just received from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary about the definition of "term of years absolute". But I think perhaps that it will take us some way towards it.
The object of the original Amendment was clear. The Clause, as drawn, gives the right to a person to apply for a grant if he is the owner in fee simple, the freeholder or the leaseholder under a term of years absolute. We sought to include a further category, as specified in the Amendment; namely, a mortgagee in possession. We felt that a mortgagee in possession could have the need to apply for a grant, first, to preserve the property, and, second, to get the grant perhaps and to sell in order to cover the amount of money that he had lent on mortgage.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary in Committee, after I had moved the original Amendment, disagreed with this, because he felt that it would be unnecessarily complicated and there would be risks in it for the mortgagee in going into possession. He further said that there were times when there was a gap between the mortgage going into default and the mortgagee going into possession.
Then the hon. Gentleman promised to look at it, after being convinced by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), with his vast experience of building societies, that it would be a very useful fillip for building societies if, as mortgagees in possession, they had power to apply for a grant to put the property in good condition and resell it. My hon. Friend pointed out that the building societies sometimes had a flair for seeing what could be made out of a property which the original owner could not see.
My hon. Friend went on to say—and this is probably the most important reason why the Amendment should be accepted—that building societies were somewhat reluctant to advance money on older properties, but that if they had this power to make application if they had to go into possession, because the mortgage was in arrears, it would encourage them to lend money on older properties. This is probably the main justification for adding to the Clause the words
or he is a mortgagee in possession.
There is a close analogy, although the hon. Gentleman did not go with me all

the way on this in Committee, between a mortgagee in possession and the owner of a freehold or the owner of a leasehold, because, if they all have the basic power to manage and dispose of the property, a mortgagee in possession can enter into possession of the building and can use it in such a way almost to the extent that somebody in either of the other two capacities can.

Mr. Skeffington: As the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) has said, the first of the Amendments which the House has accepted goes some way to meeting the points that were made in Committee. As I said in my previous remarks, the words "term of years absolute" would include a mortgagee by demise. However, the point raised by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) will not arise. In the case that he had in mind, the mortgagee by demise would not be able to get into the house if the mortgagor was in possession; so no conflict would arise. But in the other case the extension goes further than the hon. Gentleman originally thought, and provides for the mortgagee by demise.
Why can we not accept the proposals which have been moved and which we discussed in Committee to deal with the mortgagee in possession? I do not want to go over the arguments which I rehearsed in Committee, because they are somewhat lengthy and involved, but the fact is that it is not always easy to establish when a legal mortgagee by a charge by way of a mortgage is in the position to take possession. Indeed, he may, by either an express or an implied provision in a document, be expressly prohibited from so doing. In these cases it would have to be established—and time would be taken by this—that the mortgagee was or was not in that position. He may have the status of being a mortgagee in possession, but not be able to take possession. Those who deal with these matters know that that occurs.
There is the other point, which I also mentioned in Committee, that on the whole, even since the great series of Acts of 1925, the mortgagee in possession has usually been very reluctant to take possession because he is under the strictest regulation to account precisely


for moneys received or for any action that he might take which would have the effect of damaging the interests by preventing the moneys being paid, and this liability extends long after he may have parted with the property. From inquiries which I have made from some building societies since our debate I am told, and I accept this because it accords with my experience, that it is rare for the mortgagee in possession, even if he is in a position to do so, to exercise this right.
The hon. Member for Crosby in Committee, and the hon. Member for North Fylde tonight, referred to other parallels. In dealing with the case of a building society which might in certain circumstances want to take possession and apply for a grant, the hon. Member for Crosby referred to Section 34 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1968, and said that there was a parallel. I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises that there is not a parallel in the ordinary meaning of the term "mortgagee in possession", because subsection (2)(a) of that section makes the very point which I have been making. It distinguishes the mortgagee in possession in a normal case, because there one is entitled to act under the like provisions in the 1968 Act because the subsection clearly says that he must be entitled as a mortgagee by virtue of a power which has become exercisable. He has to get over that hurdle first, and he may not have the power, or, if he has it, it may not be exercisable because of time, or because of some other agreement with the parties concerned.
The mortgagee has to have this power which is exercisable to sell an interest in the hereditament or unit, giving immediate vacant possession. This is not what is normally meant by "mortgagee in possession", and consequently, as I said then, and as we feel now, this extension would be a very wide one, and I question very much whether the provision would generally be welcome.
Most building societies with a property left on their hands because a mortgagor has vanished and his payments have become overdue usually want to get rid of the assets as soon as possible. If they had this power, and there was no prohibition, I should not have thought that they would want to spend the time going to the local authority for a grant

—that is bound to take some time, perhaps five or six months—and then doing the repair work. The legal consequences of a provision of this kind are bound to be uncertain, for the reasons which I have given.
Although I find this subject fascinating, I do not want to go on at great length. If the hon. Gentleman will study the summing up of Lord Justice Russell in the case of the Birmingham Citizens Permanent Building Society v. Caunt, he will see the enormous complications which can arise in dealing with a very simple point. I hope that since the mortgagee by demise is included in our definition, he will not press the Amendments.

Mr. Graham Page: The Parliamentary Secretary has got us into a pretty kettle of fish. We are talking about the borrower, the owner of the property, who has defaulted, perhaps deserting the property after a matrimonial row. The building society, or mortgagee, has the property on its hands. Since the acceptance of the last Amendment, if that mortgagee happened to be a mortgagee by demise—that is to say, if his mortgage says that, by way of security for the money advanced, the property is let to him for 3,000 years, if that is the form which has been used—he can say to the local authority, "I have a term of years absolute, of which there is more than five years to run, and I want an improvement grant." If his solicitor happens to have drawn the mortgage in the far more ordinary form of a legal charge, which merely says that the property is charged by way of security for the loan, not demise and not let to the mortgagee, he will not have a chance of asking for an improvement grant.
This will cause enormous problems; I know one building society which has its mortgages in the form of demises. Another has them merely by charge. So some mortgagees will be able to take advantage of improvement grants and some will not.
This is our first problem due to the Parliamentary Secretary's generosity over the last Amendment. His hon. Friend will tell him the trouble he gets into at times by being generous to me over Amendments but not doing the whole thing. When one tries to do it halfway one is bound to get into trouble. What we want is the whole way. We should


give a mortgagee, left with a property on his hands, the right to sell a decent house and not a rotten house, whether he is a mortgagee by demise or by legal charge. In law it is the same thing, and there is no distinction between their rights. It is just a different form of mortgage.
It always had to be done by demise, by devising this fictitious term of 3,000 years, before the reform of the property law in 1925. It has stuck since then in many cases, but the right way to do it now is by legal charge.
11.0 p.m.
What we want to do is to enable the mortgagee, whatever the form of his mortgage, if he has a rotten house, not to put it up for sale without first improving it and making it a decent house. I have declared before in the House that I have an interest in that I am a director of a building society, and I can tell the House also that we would not like the stigma of putting up for sale a house which is badly out of repair and has no amenities in it. If it is known that a building society is selling that sort of thing, that is not good publicity for the building society. When a house of that sort comes on to our hands we would rather make improvements. If there are grants, why should we not have the opportunity of taking those grants? If the house is then sold, the grants go back to the local authority. If, on the other hand, it is better for the house to be held and let, there is no reason why that should not be so. Why should the mortgagee not let the house and use the grant?
When we talk about a mortgagee in possession it is anomalous, perhaps, to say that that does not necessarily mean that he is in possession in the sense of being in occupation. He may have taken over a house which is let, or let, perhaps, in flats. He may want to improve the amenities of the flats—put in extra bathrooms, put in extra lavatories, and so on. If we are giving one type of mortgagee that right merely because the mortgage is in the form of a demise, then do let us put the whole thing right and give that right to all mortgagees whatever form of mortgage they have. I am sure that when the Joint Parliamentary Secretary thinks it over a bit more he will find that he has gone only

half way in his previous Amendment and that if he accepts our Amendment now he will provide for all occasions, and occasions which warrant the use of grants to keep houses standing.

Mr. Maddan: I am not a lawyer—

Mr. F. A. Burden: A liar?

Mr. Maddan: Let us not have too fine distinctions at this time of night. It seems to me that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary must have taken his stand on either some obscure legal difficulty or some principle. He did not read out that book. If he had read it out that might have become clearer to me, or it might have become less clear—I am not sure—but certainly I could not deduce from what he said any clear principle on which he drew the line where he did or any legal difficulty intelligible to me as the reason why he did that.
Perhaps the reason why the hon. Gentleman did it is that it is one of these restrictions on the operation of the Bill deliberately espoused by the Government so as to limit the occasions on which these grants can be made. I hope it is not that, but since it is not the former, or did not seem to me to be the former, I can only fear that it is the latter. If it is the latter, then it is rather discreditable. Therefore, I hope that we shall later on, and by leave of the House, have the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's further explanations and, perhaps, second thoughts.
Then there is the further point that the hon. Gentleman really ought to comment on. If he draws the line where he has drawn it we have this absurd position that when certain mortgages are drawn up in a certain form they will be eligible and when they are not they will not. Presumably in cases where they will not, there will be great pressure on the legal departments of building societies to negotiate with mortgagors to revise the terms of their mortgages to take into account this part of the Bill. That must be an undesirable waste of legal talent and confusing to mortgagors.
I hope that the Government are not deliberately limiting, for some obscure reason, the occasions when these grants can be brought into operation. Perhaps the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is merely hesitating before accepting the


Amendment and will, after several more of my hon. Friends have pressed the point on him, accept our suggestion.

Mr. John Wells: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan), I am not a lawyer. So far those who have spoken to the Amendment, other than my hon. Friend, have had the advantage of training which enables them to say that when one is in possession one is not in possession. I have not had that advantage.
After declaring his interest as a director of a building society, my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) made some accurate and thoughtful observations, on which I will comment. At present we see investments of all kinds sliding. The Stock Exchange has gone down rapidly. We read in a Sunday newspaper that the great boom in antique silver appears to be on the slide. I hear my hon. Friends who are experienced in agricultural matters gossiping tonight that the price of farms is not what it was. This is clearly an indication that investments generally are falling back into the hands of mortgagees, right across the board.
The investment experts tend to say that property is still safe and that people are still investing in property because they have confidence in bricks and mortar, even if they do not have confidence in the Prime Minister. However, even bricks and mortar are tending to fall back into the hands of mortgagees because of the difficulties and heedless default of mortgagors.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby mentioned the difficulty of the family in which there has been a breakup and where the house has fallen back into the hands of the mortgagees. He spoke of the reasonable situation in which no reputable building society would want to sell a run-down house when it had an opportunity to improve and repair it and make it a good article which would bear a good image for the society in question.
This must apply even more to private mortgagees in the case of a person who has taken out a mortgage, perhaps as an act of kindness, for a neighbour, friend or relation. He may have provided the cash for a mortgage to help a friend in difficulty, but perhaps a default occurs

and the mortgagee is left with the house on his hands. A responsible private citizen would want to sell the house in good order.
The seven words which my hon. Friends seek to add are perfectly reasonable. The Parliamentary Secretary absolutely baffled us with legal jargon. I am afraid that this is the way in which things are carried on, but we should avoid that. He said that the matter was fraught with difficulty and much more complicated than it looked, but is it so fraught with difficulty? Lawyers always make a difficulty. They are paid 7s. 6d. a time for creating difficulties, [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, 13s. 4d.—the price is always going up. I forget what it is now. Here is a simple opportunity for the Parliamentary Secretary to accept seven simple little words offered in good faith by my hon. Friends. That would help the reputable building society, the private mortgagee who has sought to do a friend a good turn and come unstuck, or the charitable trust.
We know about the expropriation Act which enables tenants to be beastly to their landlords—the Leasehold Enfranchisement Act. Time after time this Government bring forward Measures which are most unreasonable towards property owners and landlords who are trying to get their properties in decent order. The Parliamentary Secretary and his joint colleague are men of good will who would like to see the stock of the nation's houses in good trim. Here is an opportunity which would cost the Government nothing in doing that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby pointed out, if the house is subsequently sold the money would come back to the Government. At a very modest temporary cost to the Government we could improve the nation's housing, maintain the image of the building societies and the spirit of good will of private mortgagees, charitable trusts and other bodies of that sort.
I deprecate the tendency of Ministers to try to baffle us with jargon. I am a simple man. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) shares with me difficulty in understanding these complicated measures, but people like us represent far more of the 52 million inhabitants of these islands than some other


hon. Members here. The ordinary citizen cannot understand the jargon. Here is an opportunity to help people of good will, to maintain the image of the building societies and generally to assist the nation's stock of houses. A mortgagee with a house that needed a bathroom or more adequate sanitary arrangements would be enabled to improve it. Let us have more common sense and less jargon.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Allason: I very much support the plea for simplicity urged by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells). It is so awfully hard for a layman to comprehend the subtleties in the mind of the Parliamentary Secretary. He talks of the enormous complications which arise if one gives to the mortgagee in possession the sanction which one gives to the freeholder. If the freeholder is there with an empty house, maybe the local authority will say they do not think that the freeholder ought to have an improvement grant because he is going promptly to sell the house. I think that was the argument used against the mortgagee in possession. But equally, let us consider the position of the freeholder with a tenancy in the house. The Government want him to improve the house. The whole Bill is about encouraging the freeholder to improve the house in the interests of the tenancy. Why, if it is not the freeholder, but merely someone who calls homself a mortgagee in possession but who is in a very similar position to a freeholder, should he be debarred?
The whole purpose of this Bill is to try to improve the housing stock at the least cost. Where there is a good case for a house with a tenant in it which needs improvement, what can be the objection? What is the point of saying that because technically he is not a mortgagee by demise but he is a mortgagee by legal charge therefore he cannot get it?
The Parliamentary Secretary has a wonderfully subtle brain, and he sees all sorts of difficulties, but I suggest that he throws these subtleties out of the window and accepts the Amendment.

Mr. Skeffington: If I may reply briefly to the points hon. Members have made, I think that so far as the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) is concerned,

we have not only gone half-way. The Amendments I moved went further than he had anticipated, and it does mean to say that anybody now with a leasehold interest of five years is in a position to apply for grant. So really we have gone one and a half times, and it is because I cannot go the other half and make it twice what he asked for that we are getting into trouble.
How very much I wish with the hon. Members for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) and Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) that this was a simple matter. Indeed the trouble is that in nearly all these matters of land tenure, although there was a tremendous simplification and crystallisation in the 1925 Acts, we still have a very large number of partial interests in land which are often complex, and none are more complex than the term "mortgagee in possession." I know it sounds absurd to say that someone is mortgagee in possession but he cannot have possession because he has agreed not to take possession himself because of a document which he is party to, or because he feels inhibited so to do by the position he is placed in of having to account for all the monies he has received, or because action he has taken could reflect adversely on the estate.
When the hon. Member for Crosby and others referred to the parallel in the 1968 Act, I had to point out that the mortgagee in possession there is defined in a very precise way.
The trouble with this series of Amendments is that the term is so wide that if we put this into the Act we would be giving rights to a category of interests which would be incapable of definition when it came to practical implementation, and we should be helping no one at all by doing that.
As the hon. Member for Crosby describes the proposition, if there had been an Amendment down which restricted to some extent the term "mortgagee in possession" as it is in the 1968 Act, I think that might have been a starter, and I would like to suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it may be possible to find a definition which would take this category of interest a little further than we have done. The mortgagee in possession does not in the normal way have a definite term of years. This is


one of the imprecisions, in addition to others I have mentioned. If we put these simple words in, as a few hon. Gentlemen want, we would make a whole whale of trouble for many people, including many building societies. With the greatest of good will—there is no shortage of good will here—we should be doing something which would be utterly irresponsible. We have gone a long way. In view of my offer to see

Division No. 276.]
AYES
[11.20 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Grant, Anthony
Percival, Ian


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
Pink, R. Bonner


Awdry, Daniel
Grieve, Percy
Pounder, Rafton


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hastings, Stephen
Prior, J. M. L.


Bell, Ronald
Hawkins, Paul
Pym, Francis


Biffen, John
Heseltine, Michael
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Black, Sir Cyril
Higgins, Terence L.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Hill, J. E. B.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Braine, Bernard
Holland, Philip
Russell, Sir Ronald


Brewis, John
Hordern, Peter
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hornby, Richard
Silvester, Frederick


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hunt, John
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Iremonger, T. L.
Speed, Keith


Burden, F. A,
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Stainton, Keith


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Carlisle, Mark
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jopling, Michael
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Clark, Henry
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


C"egg, Walter
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Tilney, John


Cooke, Robert
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Corfield, F. V.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Costain, A. P.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Vaugnan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Crouch, David
MacArthur, Ian
Waddington, David


Cunningham, Sir Knox
McNair-Wilson, Michael (W'stow, E.)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Currie, G. B. H.
Maddan, Martin
Weatherill, Bernard


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Maude, Angus
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Maxweil-Hyslop, R. J.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wiggin, A. W.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Monro, Hector
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Montgomery, Fergus
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Errington, Sir Eric
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Eyre, Reginald
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Wright, Esmond


Farr, John
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wylie, N. R.


Fortescue, Tim
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Younger, Hn. George


Foster, Sir John
Nott, John



Gibson-Watt, David
Onslow, Cranley
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Glover, Sir Douglas
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Mr. Jasper More and


Goodhart, Philip
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Humphrey Atkins.


Gower, Raymond
Page, John (Harrow, W.)





NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dalyell, Tam
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Anderson, Donald
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Archer, Peter
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Foley, Maurice


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Ford, Ben


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Delargy, Hugh
Forrester, John


Barrett, Joel
Dell, Edmund
Gardner, Tony


Bidwell, Sydney
Dempsey, James
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Bishop, E. S.
Dewar, Donald
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Gregory, Arnold


Booth, Albert
Dickens, James
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Boyden, James
Dobson, Ray
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Doig, Peter
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Brooks, Edwin
Dunn, James A.
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Dunnett, Jack
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hannan, William


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Ellis, John
Harper, Joseph


Cant, R. B.
English, Michael
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Haseldine, Norman


Concannon, J. D.
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, vardley)
Hazell, Bert


Crawshaw, Richard
Fernyhough, E.
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

whether we can carry this further in the rather specific case the hon. Gentleman mentioned, which is much narrower than the normal term "mortgagee in possession", I hope that the Opposition will not press the Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Noes 162.

Hooley, Frank
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham S.)


Horner, John
Mackintosh, John P.
Price, William, (Rugby)


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Probert, Arthur


Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Rees, Merlyn


Huckfied, Leslie
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Richard, Ivor


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Robertson John (Paisley)


Hynd, John
Manuel, Archie
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Marks, Kenneth
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Marquand, David
Sheldon, Robert


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Silverman, Julius


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Mendelson, John
Skeffington, Arthur


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Millan, Bruce
Spriggs, Leslie


Judd, Frank
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Kenyon, Clifford
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Taverne, Dick


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Tinn, James


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Urwin, T. W.


Lawson, George
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Varley, Eric G.


Leadbitter, Ted
Neal, Harold
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)



Newens, Stan
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Norwood, Christopher
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lester, Miss Joan
Ogden, Eric
Wallace, George


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)
O'Malley, Brian
Watkins, David (Consett)


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Oram, Albert E.
Wellbeloved, James


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Orme, Stanley
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Loughlin, Charles
Oswald Thomas
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Lubbock, Eric
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Palmer, Arthur
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


McCann, John
Pannell, Rt. Hn, Charles
Woof, Robert


MacColl, James
Pardoe, John



Macdonald, A. H.
Park, Trevor
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McGuire, Michael
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Pentland, Norman
Mr. Ernest G. Perry.

Clause 4

APPROVAL OF APPLICATION FOR IMPROVEMENT GRANT

11.30 p.m.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 3, line 33, leave out 'be so determined as to'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss with it Amendment No. 10 and Amendment No. 127.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): If the House agrees, so be it.

Mr. MacColl: In Committee, we discussed the problem of additional expenditure arising during work having to be approved where it was due to unforeseen work arising. We were asked to make it clear that this could be done even if the work had been started before the authority had been notified.
Amendment No. 9 removes any doubt about the application of this provision, which deals with the proportion for the cost of works of repair and replacement, in the case of unforeseen additional works.
The Amendment to subsection (3) enables the substitution of the higher amount as the amount of the approved expense to be made in the case of improvement

grants, notwithstanding that the unforeseen works have already been started. The Amendment to Schedule 1 deals with a similar situation in respect of standard grants.
All these points represent a valuable improvement to the Bill which hon. Gentlemen opposite asked for in Committee.

Mr. Graham Page: I rise only to thank the hon. Gentleman for adding to the Bill something which we urged in committee should be done.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No.10, in line 38 leave out 'could not be' and insert 'cannot be or could not have been'.—[Mr. MacColl.]

Clause 5

AMOUNT OF IMPROVEMENT GRANT

Mr. Hawkins: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 4, line 13, leave out from '£1,000' to end of line.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment, it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 13, in line 17, leave out from '£1,200' to end of line, and Amendment No. 16, in line 19, at end insert:
'or such other amounts as the Minister may by order prescribe, either generally or by


reference to a locality and the amounts so prescribed may differ as between one locality and another'.

Mr. Hawkins: The result that we wish to achieve with these Amendments will give more latitude financially and geographically to the Minister. It was admitted by the Minister in Committee that the cost of improvements in London, for instance, might be 50 per cent. more than in some rural areas. Latitude is also required because building costs are increasing rapidly and will continue to rise.
For many years, I tried to get my right hon. and hon. Friends to put up the grants—indeed, I raised the subject in my very first Adjournment debate—and I am pleased to see that this Bill proposes to improve them.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) pointed out in Committee on 25th February, 1969, the limit of £1,000 in rural areas might be sufficient for some length of time, but in London £2,000 on improvements does not go far in bringing the older Victorian houses up to modern standards. I particularly asked the Minister to give an assurance that he has in mind a review of the improvement grant figures and not just that somebody will think about them every so often. There must be a directive given in the Ministry that information will be collected. I emphasised some time ago that this information should be available and that there should be a review of the figures.
We should give the Minister the latitude which these Amendments propose so that we shall not go for such a long time again as we did before when the grants were not sufficient to tempt people to undertake improvements. Improvements were not carried out as they should have been in big enough numbers and we fell behind, with many older houses falling into disrepair.

Mr. Ifor Davies: The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) has emphasised that he wants to give more latitude to the Minister. This latitude is provided for in subsection (3).
The Amendments would alter the terms under which the Minister may prescribe by order changes in the maximum amount of improvement grants. He could prescribe different limits for different

localities as well as one for general application. As the Clause stands, the Minister's power by way of prescribing maximum amounts can be used only to change the general limits. It may be claimed that the Amendment provides a far more flexible system, but subsection (3) already gives the Minister power to approve a higher limit either in individual cases or with respect to a class of case which could be related to a locality.
Although the Amendments do not affect the Minister's discretion in subsection (3), the existence of the subsection renders the Amendments unnecessary. They would permit a range of limits from below to above the theoretical figure, which could lose all significance. This would be more confusing than helpful.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 4, line 18, at the end to insert 'or other building'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps it would be convenient to take at the same time Amendment No. 17.

Mr. Skeffington: The Amendment honours an undertaking I gave in reply to an argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman) to the effect that there might be doubt about whether grants could apply when a building was being converted into more than a certain number of storeys. The Government were satisfied about it, but we wish to make it clear beyond peradventure that the Clause applies to buildings as well as the house.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 17, page 4, line 29, leave out 'house' and insert 'building'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Clause 8

STANDARD GRANTS

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 5, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 40 and insert '2nd October 1961'.
The Bill as drafted provided that houses and dwellings built after 1944


are not eligible for standard grant unless there was a conversion before 3rd October, 1961. This was discussed in Committee. The Amendment substitutes for that date the day before 3rd October, 1961. The significance of this date is that it was from then onwards that there has been power under Section 33 of the Public Health Act, 1961, for local authorities to reject plans for new houses which did not provide for the installation of bathrooms with hot water supplies. My right hon. Friend thinks it necessary to draw a line, and this seems to be the most appropriate one.

Mr. Graham Page: I thank the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for moving the Amendment. It meets the difficulties, which we raised in Committee, of the complications in the Clause. All that is necessary is to date it back to 2nd October, 1961. This was what we urged in Committee, and I am glad that the Government have taken our advice.

Amendment agreed to.

Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.—[Mr. Harper.]

Bill, as amended, to be further considered Tomorrow.

NIGERIA (MEDICAL SERVICES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

11.42 p.m.

Mr. John Tilney: We in this House have little right to discuss Nigeria except about what we can control. That limits us to arms, aid and trade. We do, however, feel deeply for old friends, of every race or tribe, and a stirring of conscience about a country for which we were responsible for so long.
I have just come back from Nigeria. I was privileged to have an hour and a half discussion with the Head of State and I saw many of his senior advisers. I met the business community in many places. Although I went much by air. I travelled 800 miles by road. I met many people with every kind of interest and experience.
It is not up to me to blame anyone for what has gone by. I do not know

how many people were killed in 1966—I suspect many fewer than propaganda makes out, although I believe that here and there there was a local wish for genocide. I am certain that in responsible quarters there is no such wish today. Indeed, I saw several Western Ibos who had returned to their property in Kano, and I was much impressed by what had been done to hand back or safeguard Ibo houses in Benin. One feels that it is odd, however, that hardly anyone has been punished for what happened in those dreadful days in 1966, days from which, as I think the Minister will agree, springs the intransigent obstinacy of the Ibo leadership today.
When I was in Warri, I heard at night the constant drone of aircraft carrying arms to Uli airstrip. No doubt, there were a few relief aircraft mixed up among them. Why Red Cross and other relief aircraft cannot go by day after having been properly cleared is hard to understand, although, as communication has not been of the highest order, the clearance notice may not get to all the places it should.
I am sure that the Federal Government realise that if Nigeria is to be one they must have the Ibos as their friends. They are, therefore, trying to be as humane as possible, but are fighting under considerable difficulty. That difficulty might be eased if there were not so much feeling in many parts of the Federation that the war is a long way away and business and pleasure should go on as usual.
I am aware that no European should ever predict what may happen in Africa, but I suspect that there is a danger that the war may go on for much longer than many people think possible.
Iboland has several hearts. The terrain is such that the frontier or no-man's-land can be up to 100 miles deep, and a whole platoon can disappear by taking a few paces off the road. Despite the wish of most villagers—as in our Wars of the Roses—to get back to the soil and to their crops, even if all the roads and towns were taken, a core of banditry masquerading as freedom fighters could terrorise thousands of square miles for years to come.
My plea to Her Majesty's Government tonight is for medical help to be offered,


if need be—to show that we are thinking of the future rather than the present—to both sides. I have seen some of the large number of hospital casualties on the Federal side from Kano and Kaduna to Lagos and Benin. I am told that they are the lucky ones. Most soldiers who have more than superficial wounds die in the bush.
I was told that there was no anaesthetist in Benin, that a brigade might be lucky to have one doctor and that that brigade might be spread over hundreds of miles. It was told that by the end of the war one in four of all Federal troops would probably be casualties. The lack of medical help is appalling, and even in the hospitals in recovered territory such as Enugu some of the equipment needs servicing by competent technicians to make it work.
Some people might say that once Her Majesty's Government had decided to support the Federal Government help should be given wholeheartedly rather than halfheartedly, and that a few ground to air missiles would stop the airlift and finish off the war and its attendant horrors within a few weeks. But Nigeria years ago turned down the projected defence agreement with us, and few of wisdom would wish to escalate the already ghastly conflict.
I do not know how many medical units we could spare. It would certainly be good training for them. I believe that all three Services in this country should be ordered to provide field hospitals and advance dressing stations capable of immediate surgery. They should provide a medical chain of evacuation comparable to our in the last war. The personnel should be in uniform with distinctive armbands, and should probably be unarmed, although self-defence against bandits should be considered. Civilians should not be relied upon for administration. The general near chaos in the freight terminal sheds at Apapa or Ikeja airport is a warning against that.
By immediate accounting this suggestion would appear to be expensive, but in the long term it might well save vast sums of money, for the stakes are high. Nigeria and Britain in partnership have already achieved much, but the potential is much greater. What is more important is that such a gesture would enable thousands of Nigerians who die today to survive.

It should be understood that those who by such action are made fit again will not be called back to their regiments, though one hopes that once the war is over they would be available for work of reconstruction.
I happen to believe that sooner or later there will have to be a political settlement and that it is better to accept less than total victory if the alternative is absence of control and anarchy. People seem to think that the solution has got to be African-inspired. I do not understand this. I believe it is a major Nigerian and Western world interest to work for a compromise. I am told that the day for an international force, to which the Ibos who still believe their own genocide propaganda could surrender, is past. Yet without it they are likely to fight on. Cannot the rebels in their turn accept that a Swiss canton has its own independent laws, though no seat at the United Nations?
Whatever the future, a humanitarian gesture—even if not accepted by both or perhaps either side—should, I believe, he made by Her Majesty's Government. And what better one than a recovery operation enabling a future generation of Nigerians to survive.

11.52 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Maurice Foley): Hon. Members on both sides of the House, whatever their views on the Nigerian war, will be grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Waver-tree (Mr. Tilney) for giving us the opportunity to devote a short period of time this evening to the question of the medical help which we have given from our resources in this country to the casualties of the Nigerian conflict.
This is a matter on which we are all united in strong feelings of compassion for those who are human victims of a terrible war and in our anxiety to give all possible help to those victims. On these matters, and in our earnest desire for peace and an end to the fighting, I have no doubt we are all at one.
At the same time I should emphasise that it is the possibilities of British help that we are debating tonight, not the internal affairs of Nigeria. As my colleagues and I have often had to remark in the House, it is not for us to debate


the internal affairs of a sovereign independent State, be that a State of the Commonwealth or not. Still less is it our business to contemplate active intervention in what is Nigeria's domestic problem.
We have already been helping in two particular ways in which I am sure the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree would approve. I refer to the provision of the British surgical team for maxillary facial work at Kaduna in Northern Nigeria and the children's medical care unit at Enugu, the capital of the old eastern region. A team of doctors, nurses and technicians provided by the Royal Air Force and a civilian consultant from the Queen Victoria Hospital, East Grinstead, went to Kaduna in January of this year. They not only did excellent work in helping to deal with casualties suffering from gunshot wounds in the face, but also in training Nigerians in this work. The team has now been replaced by two doctors from East Grinstead under Ministry of Overseas Development technical assistance arrangements.
It seems likely that this kind of arrangement will continue as long as the need exists. The British doctors and the matron serving at the orthopaedic hospital at Dalla, under O.D.M. auspices help to deal with casualties not only in that hospital but also in the Kano city hospital nearby. As the House is aware, we set up in Enugu a child medical care unit. This unit started to operate early this year in the local hospital where they work in close co-operation with the Nigerian staff.
There are 15 doctors, nurses and technicians in the unit, which not only deals with children but also treats emergency adult cases, some of whom are suffering from gunshot wounds. During our recent visit, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I visited this unit, and we were able to see the good work that it is doing which, in its turn, is financed by Ministry of Overseas Development Aid funds. In all these cases, the presence of British doctors and medical assistance means that this is a real help to the Nigerians on the spot.
In addition to this aid, which I have just mentioned, the O.D.M. has received requests for four artificial limb technicians to go to Nigeria to make and fit

limbs and to train local craftsmen in this rather specialised sphere. The Ministry is now beginning to recruit suitably qualified experts, but it is rather difficult because it is a specialised sphere.
Also, under the auspices of the British Council, a consultant from the Moor-fields Eye Hospital recently visited Nigeria and helped with a number of operations in one of the military hospitals over a period of several weeks.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree has spoken eloquently and movingly of the terrible circumstances which he witnessed—and which I have seen—in Nigeria surrounding the needs of the casualties of the war and the desperate shortage of medical resources to cope with these casualties. These are the inevitable consequences of a civil war. They are horrifying to anyone who has been close to them and can see vividly what this means and what one's response should be. We are talking about the war wounded, both military and civilian. The problem of war refugees, displaced persons and starvation is something quite separate—and the House knows something of what we are doing in this respect.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have recently been in Nigeria with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I know from our visits to the war areas, what we saw, and what was described to us that the needs are indeed great. Moreover, reports from our representatives in Nigeria confirm the kind of evidence which has been given by the hon. Gentleman this evening.
When, therefore, in March of this year, we received an inquiry about possible British medical assistance through a senior officer in one of the armed services in Nigeria, we at once, without waiting for any formal request, initiated urgent inquiries here as to how we could respond, assuming that such a request was made and endorsed by the Nigerian Government. The immediate need at that time, which was described to us, was for two orthopaedic surgeons, one anaesthetist and two theatre sisters.
However, in the meantime, while alerting our own staff and looking around for the right kind of people and awaiting a formal request from the Federal


Government the British High Commission in Lagos was informed by the Federal Government that the staff provisionally inquired about were in fact not required.
This is how the position rests at the moment. If we were to receive a formal request from the Federal Government, then we would certainly look with urgency, because I have seen, as the hon. Gentleman has seen, the need on the spot. But the hon. Gentleman will be aware, as I am, that, realities being what they are and recruitment in this country being rather difficult, the Federal Government may well have looked elsewhere for support and assistance in this particular sphere.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not suggest that we ought to recruit British doctors to go, as it were, into the firing line, because this would present a great deal of difficulty for us. Nevertheless, if we received a formal request from the Federal Government along the lines suggested by the hon. Gentleman we would respond as favourably as we could. We know that the Federal Government have looked elsewhere. They have looked to Canada, to Algeria, and to the Philippines, and they have doctors from each of these areas.
I hope it will not be suspected by the hon. Gentleman, or by anyone else, that the efforts which I have described, and the help which we have given, implies a willingness on our part to give humanitarian aid to only one side, whatever the political grounds may be. As hon. Members know, the head of the secessionist party, Colonel Ojukwu, has repeatedly made it clear that he is not prepared to accept any form of British Government assistance, even in the field of humanitarian relief, and this has effectively ruled out any form of aid by Her Majesty's Government in the form of medical personnel for work in the seccessionist area.
Some months ago we received an informal inquiry via the British Red Cross about the possibility of providing hospital beds and treatment for so-called Biafran war casualties who would be brought to this country by the International Red Cross for the purpose. We immediately initiated inquiries about the possibilities of giving this help, and the

Department of Health and Social Security was able to inform us that it would be possible in principle to provide facilities within civilian hospitals in this country for a number of casualties from the secessionist side. We had in mind that the cost of this treatment might be shared between the British Red Cross and the Government, subject to the approval of Parliament.
We informed the British Red Cross who, in turn, informed the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva, of our willingness in principle to accept a number of these casualties from the Biafran area. Unfortunately, however, when the International Red Cross made inquiries about this it became clear that the secessionist authorities would not permit any of their wounded to come to the United Kingdom for medical treatment. We were therefore precluded, through no fault of our own, from taking part in the scheme organised by the International Red Cross for bringing Biafran casualties to Europe for hospital treatment.
I think that that account will make it clear to the House that in our approach to this strictly humanitarian problem there has been no question of partisanship or political motivation on our part.
It would be wrong to conclude my reply without any reference to the enormously valuable medical work which has been done on both sides by relief workers from this country, and from many other countries, too, mainly under the auspices of the International Red Cross, but also through the various Church organisations collectively described as Joint Church Aid. Much of the British Government's past contribution of just under £1 million to the I.C.R.C. for relief work in Nigeria has been devoted to medical care and resources, and the same is true of the more than £1 million which had been contributed by the end of last month through the British organisations. Oxfam, War on Want, Save the Children Fund, Christian Aid, and the British Red Cross.
In April of this year three British Save the Children Fund teams in Nigeria alone were giving medical care to about 12,000 people. According to the latest International Red Cross bulletins, about 36,000 people each week are receiving medical assistance in Federal territory, and a further 10,000 in the rebel-held


areas. The I.C.R.C. expatriate staff alone now engaged on medical work totals about 157. Between September, 1968, and February, 1969, the International Red Cross spent about £820,000 for the purchase of medical supplies for use by both sides. Over two million people were vaccinated against measles and smallpox.
While this type of relief work for civilians is rather different from the type of problem described by the hon. Gentleman

tonight, it is directly relevant, particularly in that this vast international effort has freed other medical resources for dealing with the immediate casualties of the war. I hope that hon. Members, whatever their views about the political issues of the war, can take some satisfaction from the knowledge of our substantial share in that great international effort.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Twelve o'clock.

Second Reading Committee

Wednesday, 18th June, 1969

[MR. ARTHUR PROBERT in the Chair]

The Committee consisted of the following Members:


Mr. Arthur Probert (in the Chair)


Armstrong, Mr. Ernest (Durham, North-West)
Macmillan, Mr. Maurice (Farnham)



Millan, Mr. Bruce (Under-Secretary of State for Scotland)


Beamish, Colonel Sir Tufton (Lewes)



Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport and Fareham)
Rhodes, Mr. Geoffrey (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East)


Dean, Mr. Paul (Somerset, North)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon (Kensington, South)


Evans, Mr. Fred (Caerphilly)



Finch, Mr. Harold (Bedwellty)
Royle, Mr. Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Fletcher, Mr. Ted (Darlington)
Ryan, Mr. John (Uxbridge)


Grieve, Mr. Percy (Solihull)
Snow, Mr. Julian (Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security)


Hornby, Mr. Richard (Tonbridge)



Kelley, Mr. Richard (Don Valley)



Kerr, Dr. David (Wandsworth, Central)
Summerskill, Dr. Shirley (Halifax)


Knight, Mrs. Jill (Birmingham, Edgbaston)




Mr. J. R. Rose, Committee Clerk.

MEDICAL BILL [Lords]

10.30 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Julian Snow): I beg to move,
That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Medical Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.
This Bill can be briefly described as a modification of the financial and disciplinary powers of the General Medical Council. Before embarking on a brief description of the main provisions of the Bill, I should like to explain why the Bill does not include any provision for vocational registration and why it contains nothing in a very definite form about testing for command of English.

I shall be making observations about this aspect later on.
Vocational registration, whereby a doctor, on satisfactory completion of specified period of training in a specialty, could become a registered practitioner in that specialty, was a recommendation of the Royal Commission on Medical Education. The Royal Commission saw this as complementary to its recommendations for postgraduate professional training and envisaged that the General Medical Council would act as the registration body for vocational registration.
Legislation will be required to allow the General Medical Council to implement the Royal Commission's recommendations on vocational registration, and this raises a number of complex


issues which necessarily take time to explore. Moreover, it cannot properly be considered apart from the other recommendations of the Royal Commission relating to postgraduate medical education which the Government are still examining. I know that some Members are anxious for a further Government statement on these important issues and I hope that it will not be necessary to delay such a statement too long. In the meantime the provisions of this Bill are urgently needed, and I can assure hon. Members that they will in no way prejudice any future action on the recommendations of the Royal Commission, including the question of vocational registration.
I should like to make an observation on a slightly broader issue which, strictly speaking, does not come into the Bill, but is a useful background note to show the Committee that we are very conscious of a problem which is in the minds of many people. I refer to the training and promotion prospects of junior hospital doctors, which have been sources of discontent in the profession for some time, and were recognised as direct causes of emigration in the Report of the Working Party on the Responsibilities of the Consultant Grade.
The Report of the Working Party, which was established by the then Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland in July last year, has recently been distributed to all National Health Service hospital doctors and dentists in and above the grade of registrar. The Working Party drew attention to the fact that junior hospital doctors are spending far longer than should be necessary in the hospital training grades with very varying degrees of supervision. The Working Party suggested that such a situation is conducive to frustration and some disillusionment in the profession and is an important factor in the migration of skilled doctors.
Discussions between the Health Departments and the profession have already begun on the basis of this Report, and also the Report of the Joint Consultants Committee's sub-committee on the hospital staffing structure. Neither the Health Departments nor the profession are yet committed to any of the recommendations in these Reports, but we are

hopeful that these discussions will lead to agreement upon an improved career structure for hospital doctors which will make the prospect of practice in this country more attractive.
I turn now to the criticisms that have been made that National Health Service authorities are employing doctors from overseas who may not be able to speak English well enough to communicate effectively with their patients.
Whilst I join my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the very good service provided by the great majority of doctors from overseas, the Government are nevertheless concerned that there should be no continuing justification for such criticism. It may be helpful if I say why provision for language testing has not been introduced into this Bill and why command of English is not made a condition of registration.
The Government have carefully considered this course, and the conclusion has been reached that the objections to it would outweigh the advantages. It is certainly the case that the institution of an examination system would give rise to difficult practical problems for the General Medical Council, but an even more substantial objection is that such an isolated test of linguistic competence does not, in our view, meet the requirements. What is wanted is a means of assessing the general capacity of an overseas doctor to practise in a clinical situation. A doctor may be able to get away with doing his weekend shopping and communicating with his friends, but his English may not be adequate for his practice as a doctor.
The present voluntary attachment scheme provides overseas doctors with an introduction to clinical practice in this country and at the same time enables their clinical competence and knowledge of the English language to be tested, under supervision. The Government have decided that the extension and strengthening of this scheme is the preferable course, and consultations with the interests concerned, including Commonwealth countries, have already begun with this end in view. It is not possible to say when these consultations will be completed, but we are pushing ahead with them so that any changes decided upon can be introduced quickly.
I should not like the Committee to be left in any doubt that we are seized of the importance of this matter and are taking steps to deal with it. But we have a Commonwealth part to play in the matter, which must not be ignored when considering the major responsibility to our patients in this country.
Turning now to the Bill itself, its main purpose is to enable the General Medical Council to require an annual fee to be paid by a doctor for the retention of his name on the Medical Register. Unlike most professional bodies, the Council cannot at present charge an annual retention fee, and so far its income has been derived from the fees paid by doctors on initial registration. The initial registration fees are at present £9 for provisional registration and a further £12 for full registration, which are considerable sums for a young doctor in his first 12 or 18 months of practice to pay and we do not want to increase them. Even so, they have not provided the Council with a sufficient or dependable income. The Council's expenditure has trebled since 1960 and will continue to rise. Its annual deficit is now considerable and it badly needs a means of increasing its income and placing itself on some more flexible basis.
Clause 5 is an attempt to remedy this situation by empowering the Council to charge an annual fee for the retention of a doctor's name on the Register, in addition to an initial fee for registration. Its scheme would require the approval of the Privy Council. Although introduction of annual fees is intended to provide the Council with an assured income, it will, incidentally, enable it to reduce the initial fees payable on provisional and full registration. Anyone who failed to pay the annual retention fee could, subject to certain safeguards, be removed from the Register under the new powers.
The main purpose of the remainder of Clauses 1 to 10 is to simplify the registration procedure and make consequential changes in the administration of the General Council. Levying of an annual fee makes it desirable for the control of medical registration to be centralised, and Clause 1 therefore provides for the local registers kept by the three Branch Councils, that is to say, the Councils for England and Wales, for Scotland and for

the whole of Ireland, to be abolished, and for registration to be effected by a single Register maintained by the Council, to be called the Register of Medical Practitioners.
I was not proposing going into the detail of these Clauses, but I should perhaps mention Clause 3, which provides for the Register to contain the names of all fully and provisionally registered practitioners but not those of temporarily registered practitioners. It will consist of two lists, the Principal List and the Overseas List, the latter containing the names of practitioners residing overseas who choose to appear on that list. A separate register will be kept of practitioners who are temporarily registered.
Clause 9 provides for some changes in the arrangements for publishing The Medical Register". In Clauses 11 and 18 there are some sensible amendments of the Council's power to recognise qualifications for registration.
After satisfactory completion of the requisite period of hospital experience, the provisionally registered doctor becomes eligible for full registration.
Temporary registration, as the Medical Act, 1956, now stands, is granted to overseas doctors who are in the United Kingdom temporarily and whose qualifications, although recognised by the General Council, were not obtained in countries covered by reciprocal arrangements.
I should like to draw attention at this paint to the provisions of Clause 12 which substitutes a new Section 25 for the existing Section of the Medical Act, 1956. As I have indicated, at present a person can obtain temporary registration only, amongst other conditions, if
he is or intends to be in the United Kingdom temporarily".
This provision has aroused some criticism, particularly in those few cases where it has prevented a doctor already practising in this country from continuing to practise if he or she can no longer be said to be "temporarily resident in the United Kingdom". The limitation in the 1956 Act serves no useful purpose, and prevents a few doctors who wish to do so, and are otherwise qualified to do so, from practising in this country.
Clause 12, therefore, removes the present limitation on temporary registration


being granted only to persons who are temporarily resident in this country.
Before going any further I should perhaps define a few terms to which I have already referred and to which I shall be referring again. These are the terms "provisional", "full" and "temporary" registration.
Provisional registration enables a newly-qualified doctor to gain the requisite experience for full registration through employment in approved hospitals. It is available to overseas doctors who have obtained recognised qualifications in countries with which there are reciprocal arrangements for the registration of qualifications. As, no doubt, we shall be coming back to that aspect later on, I would draw particular attention to those reciprocal arrangements.
At this point I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) who, on behalf of his constituent Mr. Christopher Terrell, highlighted the defect in Section 25 of the 1956 Act. Hon. Members may recall that this was raised on the Adjournment on 15th May last year, when the hon. Member for Wimbledon drew attention to the way in which tying temporary registration to temporary residence had prevented Mr. Terrell's wife from practising medicine in this country when, on her marriage, she became a permanent resident. In parenthesis, I should tell the Committee that Mr. and Mrs. Terrell are personal friends of mine, which did not make my reply in that Adjournment debate particularly easy. On her marriage, Mrs. Terrell was no longer able to have temporary registration.
In the Adjournment debate last May I said that the proposals by the Royal Commission on Medical Education for revising medical education and granting qualifications in this country were being considered and that the recognition of qualifications granted abroad would no doubt form part of the study. I said then that there were some amendments of the Medical Act which could be made independently of and without prejudicing consideration of the long-term solution.
These amendments appear as Clause 12 of the Bill and we have thus taken the first suitable legislative opportunity which

presented itself to rectify the anomaly to which the hon. Member for Wimbledon drew attention. I think I should point out, however, that although it will be possible to continue temporary registration for successive periods it will still be limited to employment in hospitals approved for the purpose by the General Medical Council; and the Council may give a direction that approval to temporary registration is limited not only to specified hospitals but also to a grade or post, or both, within a hospital.
The General Medical Council has a duty to safeguard the public and it considers that this restriction on the type of employment undertaken on temporary registration ensures that a doctor can be employed only on work suitable to his training and experience. It is not always easy to get hold of the necessary information about training or experience. The Council can satisfy itself as to the basic medical qualifications granted by the countries with which we have reciprocal arrangements, but no such detailed and consistently reliable sources of information are available to the Council with regard to the standards of qualifications and experience of many of the applicants for temporary registration, coming as they do from about 60 different countries.
Some people have argued that temporary registration is unnecessarily restrictive, in particular because the temporarily registered doctor who qualified in a country with which the United Kingdom has no reciprocal arrangements must secure a British qualification through examination before he can obtain full registration. However, I understand that although the General Medical Council is not unsympathetic to the possibility of a temporarily registered doctor being able to move eventually to full registration the ways and means of doing so will require considerable discussion with the professional bodies concerned. All I can say at present is that the Government are prepared to discuss this with the General Medical Council when we are ready. The G.M.C. is fully conversant with the problem.
Before leaving temporary registration, I should mention that since this form of registration will, under Clause 12, be able to run for an indeterminate period, Clause 16 makes certain extensions to the powers of the Disciplinary Committee in


relation to temporarily registered practitioners.
I turn now to Clauses 13 to 16 which amend the General Medical Council's disciplinary powers. At present, when a doctor has been convicted of a criminal offence or has been guilty of "serious professional misconduct"—which is the from the Bill proposes should replace the existing and somewhat archaic expression "infamous conduct in any professional respect"—the only power open to the Disciplinary Committee of the Council is to erase or strike his name off the Medical Register. In some cases judgment is postponed for up to 12 months, but this has not been found to be an entirely satisfactory alternative.
The most important change introduced by Clause 13 is the addition of suspension from the Register, subject to the same safeguards by way of appeal, as an alternative to erasure. The effect of suspension is that though the doctor's name remains on the Register, the suspension will be recorded there while it lasts, and he will be treated as though unregistered for the period of suspension. The Disciplinary Committee will be able to watch the progress of a suspended practitioner and, where appropriate, remove his suspension without delay. Alternatively, it can extend suspension or strike him off.
This brings me to the provision in the Bill for closing the loophole in existing legislation revealed in the notorious case of Dr. Petro. Where the Disciplinary Committee decides to erase or suspend a doctor from the Register, Clause 15 will enable it to suspend a doctor's registration with immediate effect rather than from the end of the appeal period or, if an appeal is lodged, from the date of its dismissal. The intention of this new power is to enable the Disciplinary Committee, when the public interests demands, to prevent a doctor from practising during the appeal period and while an appeal is being determined. This, as the Petro case showed, can be quite a protracted process. The General Medical Council directed that Dr. Petro's name be erased from the Register on 31st May, 1968, but, mainly because Dr. Petro appealed, erasure could not be put into effect until 30th October, five months later. This power of immediate suspension, together with the amendment in Clause 14(1) to the requirement for

giving notice to a doctor of the Disciplinary Committee's decision, will, we believe, effectively close this loophole.
I hope that I have now put a little flesh on the bones of the Explanatory Memorandum by developing the main provisions of the Bill. Hon. Members will see that its object is to provide some very necessary powers for stabilising the finances of the General Medical Council, and that it introduces some useful improvements in the Council's disciplinary and registration procedures. The General Medical Council itself agrees with the proposals in the Bill and the medical profession broadly accepts them. I hope that the Bill will receive a wholly general welcome and as speedy a passage through the House as possible. If I have in certain cases been unable to give a specific timetable for certain reforms it is because my Department must act in concert with those who are vested by law with professional responsibilities, such as the G.M.C.

10.53 a.m.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Yesterday it was nurses, today doctors—both Bills which have been described as relatively minor in the sense that they are narrow in their coverage, but, as the hon. Gentleman's speech made clear, important in the range of their activity, rather as might be said of the elastic in a pair of pants—narrow in relation to the whole but necessary for them to function properly. No one has yet said that this is an innocuous Bill, perhaps because no one has criticised it at all, or else only in a very limited way, in another place. I do not have any criticisms. I have one or two points to make, giving notice to the Under-Secretary of the line we think we will take in Committee, doing what is the job of the Opposition, to point out the facts and to put some ideas forward, especially in such a case as this where the main provisions have been drawn between the Government and the professions concerned, where Parliament has an especial duty as a watchdog in the public interest, which has to be considered as much as the interests of the profession concerned.
I am very grateful for some of the background points which the Minister has given. I had thought that I should be able to say that his speech reminded me


of Sherlock Holmes's dog. The Committee will recall that what was significant about that animal was what it did in the night—and it did not do anything. I had thought that I would have been able to say that what was significant about the Minister's speech was its omissions, but he has not made the omissions I thought he would. We would have liked a little more on the wider issue.
The reasons for the retention fee being introduced are that the costs of the G.M.C. have risen threefold since 1960. I reckon that to be a rise of 25 per cent. a year, and they are still rising. This is not taxpayers' money, but in view of the importance of its work perhaps we could at some stage develop some ideas of the range and future work of the G.M.C. Lord Cohen of Birkenhead referred in another place to the level of the proposed fee of £2 or £3. As he said, this is a matter for the G.M.C. with the approval of the Privy Council. Perhaps at some stage the Government will give us some idea of the balance between the initial fee and the retention fee, and the sort of level at which the retention fee is likely to be.
Although there is no public money directly involved, the G.M.C. is a matter of considerable public interest. If I may so without impertinence, I thought that Lady Serota, in another place, made a slight mistake when she said that this was no direct concern, except in one instance, of the general public. The instance to which she referred was the new protection of immediate suspension. This puts the G.M.C. in the same class as the Jockey Club, exercising strong disciplinary powers upon members of the profession. There is considerable public interest in this, and particularly in the career structure.
I was not altogether convinced, either by reading the arguments in another place, or by listening to the Under-Secretary this morning, of the reasons why vocational registration cannot be included in this Bill. I cannot understand why it cannot be considered apart from the other Royal Commission recommendations. I accept that we need to wait for the method of training, the numbers of people to be trained, and the details of the postgraduate training, but I do not

see that this implies that we have no coherent idea of the nature of the qualifications, the range of their coverage, and the sorts of methods employed for training and career structure for the future.
I was very grateful, as I am sure the Committee was, for what the Minister said about career structures, and the problems of junior doctors in particular. There are one or two points that I should like to make now, and perhaps the Minister will consider them for some later stage. It seems that there is a growing concern to get the work of the general practitioner more closely integrated with the hospital service to prevent the growing division between general practice and hospital doctoring. This question of the vocational register and postgraduate training is, therefore, of the utmost importance both to the staffing structure and to the pursuing of this end.
There is also the point, which we might hear about in this context, of the need, and the difficulties which that need imposes, for some junior hospital doctors to move around to get the qualifications they require. If a junior hospital doctor remains too long in one post he may find, when he applies for promotion, that others who have moved around more than he have acquired more qualifications. When we consider the question of the vocational register perhaps that aspect will be kept in mind.
This is a two-part problem. There is the whole question of the structure of the hospital service itself, and the status and rôle of the doctors in it. We have to consider the difficulty that there would be in promoting more registrars to consultants if that implied that they were also to have the full team which all existing consultants have, and the probability, therefore, that some consultants would be consultants in status and qualifications but would have to accept that they would be acting on their own and not necessarily with the full apparatus which every one now has. Again, there is the whole question of the rôle of a general practitioner in a hospital.
Apart from the question of the doctor—and this is where I regret that the Bill does not go further—there is closely linked the whole question of training, and this question, as the Minister has admitted, is closely linked with the question


of a vocational register. I think that we shall return to this in more detail in Committee.
I turn, now, to the second of the points which I feared the Minister would not raise—I am grateful to him for doing so—namely, the registration of foreign doctors. I am not wholly convinced by the Minister's arguments. I agree that they were reasonably truncated for this Second Reading debate, and no doubt we shall be able to go into the whole question in a great deal more detail in Committee. This is a very big and difficult problem. There is not only the question of language, but that of the medical training and experience of some foreign and Commonwealth doctors. It is so varied from what they meet in United Kingdom practice that it is difficult for them to overcome the problem.
This is not a question of colour, although, regrettably, it may in some cases be treated as such. Not least of the difficulties arises with non-English speaking doctors from southern Europe, who have come to this country in increasing numbers during the last five years. It is a big problem, because large numbers of these doctors arrive here every year. I think I am right in saying that more than half the junior staff are immigrant doctors, and that, whether we like it or not, for the next ten years we shall have to rely to a great extent on doctors coming to this country from abroad.
As we have got on to that aspect at this stage I think I ought to emphasise how necessary it is to improve the arrangements, to be fair to the immigrant doctors themselves. So often when something goes wrong the blame is spread among other immigrant doctors whose qualifications and mastery of the English language are complete and adequate. That spread is, regrettably, that much easier when immigrant doctors can be identified by colour, than in other cases.
One must emphasise that this is a limited problem, but it is an important one. To say that a doctor may have difficulty in this country does not necessarily imply that he is a bad doctor. Sometimes his medical experience is different from the rôle that he is asked to fulfil. Very often it is, perhaps, a mistake on the part of the employer in appointing a particular person to a particular

post, rather than a fault on the part of the employee.
The Under-Secretary of State referred to the voluntary attachment scheme, and to the discussions which are continuing with the Commonwealth. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not make the mistake which Governments sometimes make of thinking that in a matter of this kind it is sufficient to get agreement between the interested parties, the G.M.C., the B.M.A., and the Commonwealth countries, to bring in regulations. Parliament is concerned, and people are concerned. The great problem which we have to face is that these regulations cannot be amended. I am anxious, therefore, to get as much as possible into the terms of the Bill, and to leave as little as possible, and only that which is properly left, to subsequent negotiation and settlement. I think that the same considerations apply to temporary registration.
Turning to the detail of the Bill, I hope that on Clause 3 the Government will let the House know as soon as possible about the discussions they are having with the profession on the employment of overseas doctors. The wider range of qualifications which can now be included in the Register under Clause 11 will be very welcome to all concerned, and I should like to go on record as thanking the Minister for, and congratulating the Government on, correcting that tiresome anomaly in the way that they have done in Clause 12.
We shall have a great deal more to say, and rightly so, on Clause 13 and the provision for suspension in lieu of striking off the Register. I must mention in passing a slight feeling of nostalgia that the splendidly archaic language has been modernised, but, of course, it is right that that should be so. I hope that the position of single-handed doctors in general practice, the whole question of suspension, of seniority payments, and so on, will be carefully considered.
If suspension is intended to have a much less severe effect on a doctor's life than erasure, we must be careful to limit the consequences of suspension and not let the consequential effects make the penalty more severe than is intended. That applies particularly in the case of immediate suspension. If the Council is to have these powers—and I do not


doubt that it should—it is very important that any appeal should be dealt with as speedily as possible, otherwise it may be that a sentence, as it were, intended to be a suspension for 12 months will extend beyond that period because of delays, and if the appeal is successful the doctor will be penalised unnecessarily, and even if it fails he will be penalised to a greater extent than was originally intended.
I was a little worried about Clause 19 and the provision for getting for the G.M.C. statistical information from doctors. If it is intended to allow the Council to request information from doctors for statistical purposes, I do not see what this is doing in the Bill at all. It seems to me that a body of this nature does not need the authorisation of a Statute to request information from those who are registered with it. If, on the other hand, the intention is to empower, directly or indirectly, the Council to demand information about patients from doctors, I do not think that this should happen at all. I do not believe that to be the intention, but perhaps we can come to that in due course.
I hope that I, too, may digress a little into the background, as the Minister did, and say that the changes wrought in this Bill, and the intentions of the Government and the Council with regard to training, postgraduate training, and a vocational register, make it extremely important that the composition of the Council should be as broadly based as possible, and I hope that the majority will, therefore, be elected from the profession. I hope, too, that the Ministry, as what one might call the supervising employer, in the sense that all hospital doctors are indirectly employed by the State, will do what it can to see that junior hospital doctors are given enough time to play a rôle in this organisation.
In another place Lord Newton said that this is the
latest but, I imagine, not the last of a long list of Statutes"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 6th May, 1969; Vol. 301, c. 1166.]
on this subject, and Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, in his admirable speech, said this
is, as it were, the first of a series of Bills"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 6th May, 1969; Vol. 301, c. 1174.]

to be presented to another place. I hope, therefore, that in Committee we can ensure that, as the latest, but not the last, or as the first of a new series, the Bill does everything it can to improve the arrangements for the registration of doctors and to aid the work of the General Medical Council.

11. 12 a.m.

Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: I think that this is a useful Bill, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) said, it received a warm welcome in another place. The debate on it there was very interesting.
I recognise that there is a need to modify the financial and disciplinary powers of the Council, which is broadly what the Bill sets out to do, but it affects the livelihood and careers of every doctor in the country, and anyone who is to practice in future, and, for that matter, every patient and every potential patient: in short, everybody. Therefore, while it may seem superficially to be of a fairly routine character, I think that we are obliged to look at it very carefully indeed. I recognise that, on the whole, the Bill is not controversial, but my hon. Friend raised a number of important points, and I should like to underline one or two of them.
I propose to deal, first, with the question of command of the English language. I confess that I am worried about this. I was not at all convinced by what the Minister said. He told us that command of the English language for normal purposes is not by any means the same as it is for clinical purposes, but this is why I am worried. I do not think that to hold that view leads one to the conclusion that nothing should be done about it. I take the view that something should be done, and quickly. From a clinical or medical point of view command of the English language is very important. There is a lot of public anxiety about this, and we would be wrong not to recognise it. I hope that in Committee we shall consider this again and get some further assurance from the Government. I am sure it would be wrong to imagine that the public is not interested in the ability of doctors in the Health Service to speak English adequately to carry out their professional duties. There has been much


in the Press about this. We have to take careful note of it. I hope that we shall do so and that we shall have some reassurance.
The General Medical Council is in some financial difficulties, and there is an obvious need to make it solvent, while at the same time seeing that it maintains its independence from the Government. This independence is very important as a part of professional status. The provisions of Clause 5 will mean that the medical profession must provide the wherewithal for the General Medical Council to do its job while maintaining its independence. The Clause is non-controversial, but it is important.
I have been in touch with the British Medical Association with reference to Clause 13. There have been second thoughts on the part of the B.M.A. In the past it was very doubtful about these powers of suspension in the form proposed. Now, I understand, it has changed its views and is willing to accept a Clause of this character.

Mr. Snow: This is a very important point. There are consultations going on at present, and I hope to be able to be a little more explicit about this in Committee.

Sir T. Beamish: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary and I appreciate that intervention. As he knows, the B.M.A. has serious doubts about the practical effects of this new power. This is a matter we shall have to consider very carefully in Committee.
As was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham, there is a direct relationship between the length of practice in the National Health Service and seniority and superannuation payments. A suspension could have as severe an effect as erasure from the Register. As suspension is entirely different from erasure, the Committee will want to make sure that a clear distinction is made between the effect it can have on a doctor's superannuation and on his seniority rights. I understand the B.M.A. is not happy about the side effects of the Clause. One suggestion has been put forward for suspension for a lesser period than a year, with a view to making clear the difference. I am sure the Under-

Secretary will agree that this is important.
Also arising from the Clause, the B.M.A. has serious doubts, I understand, about the appeal machinery, and it has good grounds for them. The Privy Council, which is the appellate body, is very slow moving, and long delays can take place in the hearing of appeals. Would it be possible to ensure that appeals are heard more quickly, or is there the alternative idea that the High Court should be the appellate body? The Under-Secretary will know more about these ideas of the B.M.A., and I hope that we may have more information about them.
I have strong feelings about Clause 19 which empowers the Council to obtain information from registered practitioners for statistical purposes. That it needs a certain amount of information in well-defined fields goes without saying, but I would need much convincing that it requires information outside those fields. I should like to know for what purpose it is needed other than the purpose of registration by the General Medical Council. This is something we have to look at very carefully, because inevitably there is a view, of which we must take account, that the seeking from doctors of information outside limited fields for specific purposes by the General Medical Council could easily interfere with the confidential character, which is so important, of the doctor-patient relationship.
None of the things I have mentioned is of a party political character. It is nice to get away from party controversy for a time. All members of the Committee will share my view that a great many people are asking questions of a great many other people in these days. We want the minimum interference with our private lives. I should want some convincing that this is the right Bill to introduce these powers, and that they are really needed now. I realise, of course, that the answering of any questions would, presumably, be voluntary. I may not have studied the matter with sufficient care, but I do not think there would be any compulsion on doctors to reply to questions which they thought went beyond what was necessary. Even so, asking unnecessary questions, although there is no compulsion to reply, is something which should be avoided if possible. This aspect of


the Clause must be looked at extremely carefully.
We look forward to the Committee stage of the Bill.

11.22 a.m.

Mrs. Jill Knight: When I started to endeavour to brief myself about this Bill I thought it rather strange that apparently a law had to be passed in Parliament before the General Medical Council could alter the fees for people applying for registration. However, I learn that the General Medical Council expects that, if no change is made, the cumulative deficit by the end of 1971 will be about £200,000. That is an extremely large sum, bearing in mind the amounts of money which the G.M.C. has to find for various purposes. I very much support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) and by the Under-Secretary. I am anxious that, by reason of what we are doing in this Bill, no hardship should be caused to those called upon to meet the extra fees.
I recognise that we do not know what the extra fee will be. In another place it was suggested that it would be merely £2 or £3 per annum. That may seem a small sum. Nevertheless, I wonder if anything could be done for junior hospital doctors who, I believe, have to pay out of their salaries for such things as stethoscopes, white coats, and so on. If they apply for another post in a hospital the actual application for the job can be extremely costly under present procedural rules. I want to be assured that this provision will not mean more pinpricks for the junior hospital doctor.
I join my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) in expressing concern about knowledge of the English language. I listened carefully to what the Under-Secretary said. He said, "We are taking steps in this matter." It is important that the public should be able to expect that those steps will not be faltering ones, because there is great concern about this matter. I should have thought it a simple basic qualification for practising medicine that a doctor should be able to understand clearly not only the precise words used by his patients but their nuances. Often, these are, for strangers to our country,

difficult to understand. I therefore hope that the steps which are taken will be swift and will deal with the problem properly.

Sir. T. Beamish: I think my figures are correct and that more than half the doctors below consultant level in the National Health Service hospitals are foreigners. That is a remarkable number and shows the importance of this question. I do not think many people realise how many foreign doctors are practising here, and how dependent we are on them.

Mrs. Knight: That adds weight to what has been said. I am sure the Under-Secretary is apprised of the problem. I do not for a moment suggest that lie does not agree about its seriousness.
I was interested in the change to be made in the wording which the Disciplinary Committee has to use: "infamous" has become "serious". It is a comment on our times that what used to be "infamous" conduct is now "serious" conduct. I merely make that comment. I do not oppose the change. But it is an interesting one.
On Clause 13, I agree with what the Under-Secretary said about Dr. Petro and prescribing of drugs. It is most important that the appeal mechanism should be good. As my hon. and gallant Friend said, there is an appreciable delay when a doctor appeals. Power is provided in the Bill for immediate suspension. There is need not only to be able to suspend at once but to appeal quickly. This is most important. Under the Bill a doctor, having appealed against an extension of suspension, might serve the whole additional period of suspension before the appeal is dealt with by the Privy Council.
As the Clause stands it allows the General Medical Council to act on an offence which a doctor committed before he was even on the register. It does not seem quite right that offences committed prior to registration should be brought to the notice of the Disciplinary Committee in cases where doctors train and qualify in Britain.
On Clause 17 I ask whether the election procedure of the G.M.C. is to differ substantially from the present procedure, and, if so, in what way.
I, too, am somewhat anxious about Clause 19. This question of requesting information from doctors for statistical purposes is a delicate one. I have in mind another Measure in respect of which the giving of information to a doctor, knowing that it might be handed over, has had a salutary effect on the patient. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham that the provisions of the Clause should be contained in a subsequent Bill dealing with vocational registration. There is opposition from the B.M.A. to this provision, and the Association wrote to me saying:
The Council does not see any place in the Bill for powers which in any case are voluntary to obtain statistical information other than for purposes of compiling the register.
I support the Bill, and I am glad that our discussion today has been on a nonparty basis.

11.32 a.m.

Mr. Snow: With permission, I will address the Committee a second time.
The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) raised a number of useful points, and I think he will agree that they could be more usefully discussed at a later stage.
The hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) and others were concerned about the information which will be required by the G.M.C. It may be more helpful if this point, too, is discussed at length at a later date, in Committee. The intention is to provide the G.M.C. with information which it would like to have to make better informed decisions. Although this is not a compulsory power to demand information, we can discuss the matter later. I feel that it is a reasonable request and should be incorporated in the Bill. I assure hon. Members that there is no question of compulsion.
I assure the Committee that we regard the language problem as an important and urgent matter. There are many problems which do not immediately appear to be involved in this issue; for example, even where we have reciprocal arrangements with countries in which the studies in the medical schools are conducted in the English language we frequently find that the people who qualify from such schools still really do not understand colloquial or idiomatic English. We are

seized of the urgency of the matter and I hope, at a later date, to give the Committee more information.
The question of the appeals structure was raised and the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston made a good point when she said that we should, as I will do later on, clarify the appeals structure in relation to immediate suspension. I agree that the matter needs to be discussed.
I was relieved to learn that the hon. Member for Farnham had done his homework on the question of vocational registration, since I had studied the matter and had wondered whether my efforts had been necessary. It is not possible to incorporate this item in the Bill because it cannot be done in isolation from the findings of the Royal Commission on Medical Education. The consultations at all levels in the profession are of such a technical nature that it is not possible to have this ready in time. I am somewhat perturbed that the document, "The Responsibilities of the Consultant Grade", may not be available to all hon. Members of the Committee. I will try to have more copies available.
I have taken note of what has been said about the timing of the appeal procedures and about delays which may ensue on appeal to the Privy Council. I will elaborate on this and other matters when we discuss the Measure in Committee. Hon. Members may ask why this issue has not been decided previously. Negotiations between the Government and the professions are always somewhat slow, and we must keep in mind the person who really matters in all this, and that is the patient. I therefore ask hon. Members to bear with me for the time being; and I hope to give more detailed information as we proceed.
There does not appear to have been very much controversy over the Bill and I therefore hope that hon. Members will give it a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Medical Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.

Committee rose at twenty-three minutes to Twelve o'clock.

THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS ATTENDED THE COMMITTEE:


Probert, Mr. (Chairman)
Macmillan, Mr. Maurice


Armstrong, Mr.
Millan, Mr.


Beamish, Sir T.
Rhys Williams, Sir B.


Evans, Mr. Fred
Royle, Mr. A.


Fletcher, Mr. Ted
Ryan, Mr.


Knight, Mrs.
Snow, Mr.